Facebook – Page 4 – Social Media Legality

Does Social Media Replace the Need to Think? Has it Caused Our Critical Thinking Skills to Shrink?

As we all know, through social media, information disseminates with lightning speed. Instantly, millions are up to date and provided conclusions to a variety of stories and issues. Users simply acquire, retain, and click (i.e., re-tweet, like or dislike), easy-peasy- free of thought. Is this troubling? Robert Frost once said “Thinking isn’t agreeing or disagreeing. That’s voting.”

Accordingly, if a re-tweet is nothing more than a vote for the product of the analysis of others , and if clicking Facebook’s “like” button simply allows over 1 billion users to avoid intellectual expression all together, are we setting a trend abandoning 2500 years of trans-disciplinary critical thinking? Is this dangerous to future generations? Is this a good trend, beneficial perhaps? Is it worrisome that social media allows so many to routinely supplant active argumentation?

In 1987, the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defined critical thinking as “the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior.”

Thinking is thus to be contrasted with: the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated. If this is true, it means that the net intellectual engagement in context- for millions of social media users- amounts to nothing more than a preferential re-tweet, and/or clicking “like”/“dislike,” with a smile.

But with only so many users, social media remains a form of entertainment. One may argue: Relax! It’s fun. There are plenty of people left who still read and think! Okay, but what happens when 5 or 6 billion people become devoted users? How much fun would that look like? Perhaps it is just evolution?

Could it be that “thinking” is simply a natural process that will adapt to social media and evolve accordingly, in a beneficial way? Perhaps an active mode of thinking- where the thinker consciously separates facts from opinions and challenges assumptions- is becoming outdated?

Social Media Companies and Subpoena’s

Given the digital goldmine of potential evidence available from social media websites, it is not surprising that they are increasingly targeted by search warrants and government subpoenas in criminal matters.

I recently had a conversation with an Assistant District Attorney that stated when they subpoena digital records from social media websites like Facebook, and Twitter, those social media companies disclose to the user that a subpoena has been ordered to release specific information from the website. As the ADA stated, “this makes it extremely difficult to investigate a person’s social media activity during an on-going investigation.” Further, when a subpoena is issued, the ADA already has creditable evidence to move forward with a subpoena to proceed with the investigation. The ADA is not issuing subpoena’s to invade the privacy of an individual’s innocent conduct.

This new policy from social media companies comes in the wake of the NSA surveillance scandal. Just last month, Eric Snowden appeared via videoconference at the South by Southwest technology conference, urging companies to increase their security and protect their users from government intrusion. Snowden wants the technology industry to get serious about protecting the privacy of its users and customers. Since the NSA scandal, social media companies have implemented new privacy policies that have made it difficult for investigators to subpoena records. This has changed the way social media companies cooperate with government officials.

Federal law provides that, in some circumstances, the government may compel social media companies to produce social media evidence without a warrant. The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) governs the ability of governmental entities to compel service providers, such as Twitter and Facebook, to produce content (e.g., posts and Tweets) and non-content customer records (e.g., name and address) in certain circumstances. The SCA, which was passed in 1986, has not been amended to reflect society’s heavy use of new technologies and electronic services, such as social media, which have evolved since the SCA’s original enactment. As a result, courts have been left to determine how and whether the SCA applies to the varying features of different social media services.

Facebook has posted in a Help page article titled “May I obtain contents of a user’s account from Facebook using a civil subpoena? The article cites the Stored Communications Act as the reason that “Federal law prohibits Facebook from disclosing user content…in response to a civil subpoena,” stating unequivocally:

“Federal law prohibits Facebook from disclosing user content (such as messages, timeline posts, photos, etc.) in response to a civil subpoena. Specifically, the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., prohibits Facebook from disclosing the contents of an account to any non-governmental entity pursuant to a subpoena or court order.”

In response to Facebook’s interpretation of SCA, a federal district court judge has held that certain elements (e.g., private messages) of a user’s Facebook or MySpace profile were protected from being subpoenaed under the Stored Communications Act by analogizing them to a type of electronic message (Bulletin Board System–BBS) that was mentioned in the Stored Communications Act. Crispin v. Audigier, 717 F.Supp.2d 965 (2010, C.D. CA). The court quashed the defendant’s subpoenas to Facebook and MySpace requesting private messages from the plaintiff’s account.

As to the subpoenas seeking Facebook wall postings and MySpace comments, the Crispin court remanded the matter so a fuller evidentiary record regarding plaintiff’s privacy settings so it could be determined before deciding whether to quash the subpoena for that content. This implies that Facebook does not get to decide where the “privacy” bar should be set in determining whether social networking postings and comments are subject to a subpoena as Facebook’s Help pages would lead us to believe—only the court gets to decide that.

Perhaps this is why companies like Facebook have implemented a disclosure rule that notifies the user when a warrant or subpoena has been issued and requests the users site based content.

Are social media companies doing the right thing by notifying users when records are subpoenaed? Thoughts?

Social Rift

Another day, another questionable Facebook acquisition, and as engadget.com put it, another instance of the “Facebook” effect. This particular acquisition is the $2 billion purchase of virtual reality headset manufacturer “Oculus Rift.” Oculus Rift is a particularly unique purchase by Facebook because of its crowdfunding roots. Oculus Rift got its start through the crowdfunding website “Kickstarter.” Kickstarter allows individuals to contribute money to upstarts and projects often essentially pre-purchasing the product they are supporting. Oculus Rift was able to successfully get funded and shipped its VR headsets to qualifying supporters. Oculus was deemed to be a device that will change the gaming industry and supporters, many of them developers, wanted to get in on the ground floor. Since its funding the Oculus Rift has improved and has been used for numerous projects, demos, and games by developers, artists, and gamers alike.

The future of the Oculus Rift will now however will be determined by Facebook its new owner to the dismay of many of Oculus’ former supporters. Which poses an interesting legal question that Kickstarter and startups like Oculus have to consider. What happens when your hundreds of investors on a crowdfunding site like Kickstarter think they are funding something like a unique grassroots revolution in gaming and it turns out to be bought by a social media juggernaut who may have intentions to take the company in a completely different direction? Kickstarter has maintained that supporters on their website are not entitled to shares of the company they are supporting, viewing supporters as donators more than investors. Many of the 9,522 initial Kickstarter backers of Oculus are now demanding their money back and expressing their displeasure online through social media such as on twitter and on Oculus’ Facebook page (irony noted). Oculus’ Kickstarter page is riddled with comments condemning the acquisition and expressing their feelings of betrayal believing Oculus received a windfall on the shoulders of their supporters who made them who they are today.

Facebook may be able to now provide Oculus funding much greater than they have ever seen before, but their future in gaming is at risk by a number of factors. The “Facebook effect” for instance, caused by the feeling of distrust of the social media giant by many, is already having an adverse effect with not just their Kickstarter supporters, but also by huge players in the gaming industry the platform needs to rely on. The creator of “Minecraft,” an immensely popular game on a large number of platforms including game consoles, mobile phones, and PC’s tweeted, “We were in talks about maybe bringing a version of Minecraft to Oculus. I just cancelled that deal. Facebook creeps me out.” Oculus also will soon no longer be the only game in town as far as virtual reality is concerned, with Sony announcing recently their own headset, Project Morpheus, for their PlayStation 4 game console. Kotaku.com offered a quote by Sam Biddle from the blog Valleywag to offer a strong perspective to sum up the concerns of many in the crowdfunding community, “For me, it’s now simple: post-Oculus, if you back a large Kickstarter project, you’re a sucker.”

Facebook After Death

Facebook has recently changed its privacy policy for deceased users’ accounts. Prior to this change, upon a friend or family member’s request, and upon confirmation that the user had actually passed away, Facebook would restrict the deceased user’s account so only “friends” could view the “memorial” page. In order to respect the choices a Facebook user makes while still alive, Facebook will now continue to apply, after the user’s death, the privacy settings the user chose while alive.

When I first read about this, I have to admit I thought it was a little creepy. I’m not sure that I would want my Facebook page to live on after I die, or if I would want random people to be able to look at a deceased family member or friend’s Facebook page. However, after surfing the Internet for more information about this, I came upon a Huffington Post blog that opened my eyes to the benefit of this new Facebook policy.

The author of the blog, Jordi Lippe, discussed how, after her father passed away tragically, she found herself visiting his Facebook page, posting on his wall, and tagging him in pictures more often than visiting his gravesite. Ms. Lippe didn’t find this to be creepy, as I had sensed it would be; rather, she looked at it as an opportunity to feel more connected to her father, to honor him, and to connect with all of the other people who missed and loved her father.

Various state legislatures are trying to figure out how to deal with digital assets. For example, Virginia enacted a law enabling parents of deceased minors to obtain control of their child’s various online accounts. After the parent assumes his or her child’s terms of service agreements, presumably, that parent can delete those accounts.

What are your thoughts? Is Facebook right in honoring a person’s privacy choices after he or she passes away? Should minors using Facebook receive the same treatment after death, or are parents justified in wanting to take control of their child’s digital assets, including deleting or deactivating those accounts? Would you want your Facebook page to be memorialized?

Facebook’s questionable expansion further into mobile.

How does a relatively unprofitable company of about 50 employees whose product is a blatant copy of another’s get acquired for 19 billion dollars in five years? The answer might not be entirely clear, but Facebook shareholders hope that CEO Mark Zuckerberg has a good idea after Facebook’s acquisition of mobile messaging app “WhatsApp” for $19 Billion. WhatsApp users also would like to know what this all means for the service they have deeply integrated into their lives.

WhatsApp had its start by offering a BlackBerry Messenger like experience for mobile devices other than BlackBerrys. What that means is that this kind of messaging service offers a much richer experience and allows for enhanced speed and security by utilizing internet data services as opposed to a traditional SMS text message. Today, WhatsApp has a user base of about 450 million monthly active users, with billions of messages being sent every day, and is growing at 1 million users a day. The company charges its users a dollar a year to use the service, making a profit nowhere near the $19 Billion purchase price by Facebook. Looking at Facebook’s current ad based revenue it enjoys through its other services it is not farfetched to suspect a change in the monetization strategy of WhatsApp. Despite these concerns WhatsApp CEO assures the Wall Street Journal that he believes WhatsApp “will stay completely independent and autonomous.”

These kinds of changes may concern the millions who use and trust WhatsApp especially with all of this happening on the heels of a report by Canadian and Dutch agencies having concerns over the privacy of users of WhatsApp due to violations of international privacy law. The report found that although WhatsApp had made some changes, the report still concluded that “The investigation revealed that WhatsApp was violating certain internationally accepted privacy principles, mainly in relation to the retention, safeguard, and disclosure of personal data.” Facebook has been no stranger to privacy concerns and controversy and users of WhatsApp will have to take all of this information into account when choosing what mobile messaging app they will like to use.

For now it is uncertain what changes, if any, will come to WhatsApp after this acquisition by Facebook. With more secure services like BlackBerry Messenger recently going cross-platform consumers will have to consider which companies they want to possibly have access to their conversations and personal information.

In the comments I would love to hear how you message friends (sms, imessage, bbm, whatsapp, kik, facebook messenger, etc) and why you use that service. Should we be concerned about the violation of privacy laws by some of these companies? What steps should be taken to protect consumers who utilize these services?

Facebook Cries For Help: What Are We Missing?

On Thursday, February 13, 2014, 15 year old Jayah Ram-Jackson jumped to her death from her grandmother’s Upper West Side high rise. Ram-Jackson had a history of depression and mental issues, but according to her family, no one anticipated the tragedy ahead.

When a loved one decides to take their own life everyone asks themselves, “Was there something I could have done?” or “Did I miss any signs or cries for help?” Most of the time the family dwells on minute phrases or actions from the days leading up to the death, but let’s face it, hindsight is always 20/20. Rarely do we have a clear documented threat days before a loved one takes their own life. On Tuesday, just two days before Ram-Jackson decided to plunge to her death, she posted on Facebook, “I’m actually just going to wait for someone to make a petition for me to kill myself because it’s inevitable…like, we all see it coming.” Unfortunately, no one did see it coming. Now, Ram-Jackson’s family should in no way, although they naturally may, blame themselves for not seeing this post. But, is someone else to blame? Should someone else be responsible for not catching this post earlier?

In such a social media controlled world, most teens in America have a Facebook account. If a teen contemplating suicide wanted to cry for help, I can think of no better place for that cry to be heard loud and clear than on their Facebook page. But are these cries being heard loud and clear? Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities specifically states that, “we…are not responsible for the content or information users transmit or share on Facebook.” With this new age tool to detect suicide before it occurs, should Facebook have a duty to spot these cries for help and intervene? Should the government be placing some program into effect, or is it the guardians of the teens who should be responsible for monitoring their Facebook page? It seems to me that it is easier for a teen to post a half joking, half serious status about taking their own life on Facebook, then to physically go up to a parent or friend and talk to them about what they are feeling. Facebook has become an outlet, a friend, a therapist to these teens and we should not waste these opportunities to step in and get the teen help before doing something that they most definitely have not fully thought through.

Should someone be responsible for catching these cries for help posted by teenagers? If it is Facebook, will they willingly set up a filter to catch certain buzz words? If it is the government, are they allowed to fully monitor every word that Facebook users post in order to save lives? If it is the guardians, should they have a duty to continuously check their teens Facebook page?

Facebook has stated from the beginning that they are not responsible for what is posted on their site, so they are unlikely to create this type of program. Before Facebook was in existence, a guardian never had a duty to read a child’s diary searching for potential suicide threats, so it is also unlikely that a law would be created to force parent’s to consistently monitor their child’s social media pages. The government, on the other hand, may have the power to intervene. There is no privacy issue to these Facebook posts because there is no longer an expectation of privacy to the users, who have voluntarily chosen to relinquish this information to a 3rd party. The issue then becomes, is the government willing to set a program in motion which monitors these posts?

Facebook and Envy

As one of the few people my age (twenty-four) without Facebook (or any social media), I found an article published in The Economist in August 2013 to be pretty stimulating. The article, entitled “Facebook is Bad for You: Get a Life” summarizes several studies indicating that those who use Facebook are more miserable in life. According to a study recently published by the Public Library of Science, “the more someone uses Facebook, the less satisfied he is with life.”

According to the article, past studies have found that using Facebook causes jealousy, social tension, isolation, and even depression. Dr. Ethan Kross of the University of Michigan and Dr. Philippe Verduyn of Leuven University in Belgium conducted a study where they tracked eighty-two ‘Facebookers’ for two weeks and evaluated their changes in emotion. The guinea pigs were all in their late teens or early twenties and agreed to have their Facebook activity and real life encounters monitored for two weeks, reporting five times a day on their state of mind via a short questionnaire. When researchers analyzed the results, it was determined that “the more a volunteer used Facebook in the period between two questionnaires, the worse he reported feeling the next time he filled in a questionnaire.” While those who used Facebook more frequently reported a decline in satisfaction, those who had more direct contact with others, via personal encounters or phone calls, were more positive. “In other words, the more volunteers socialized in the real world, the more positive they reported feeling the next time they filled in the questionnaire.” The results led the doctors to conclude that Facebook actually undermines one’s well-being.

The article also cites a past study conducted by social scientists in Germany who surveyed 584 Facebook users in their twenties. “They found that the most common emotion aroused by using Facebook is envy. Endlessly comparing themselves with peers who have doctored their photographs, amplified their achievements and plagiarized their bons mots can leave Facebook’s users more than a little green-eyed.” The study concluded that encountering people in real life is much more realistic and thus more rewarding.

When I first read this article, I was skeptical of the results of the studies. However, upon more reflection, I recalled numerous people I know who have been ‘brought down’ after seeing something on Facebook. This is not why I do not have Facebook. I choose not to have Facebook because I believe in privacy– I do not think it is anyone’s business to know what I am doing, but even more so, I do not think that anyone would care. That being said, I can appreciate the connections people maintain through social media and would never criticize users. To each his own.

This article does, however, make a lot of sense. Why would anyone want to expose themselves to potentially being less satisfied with life because of nonsense read on social media? On the other hand, are these studies merely blowing Facebook’s effects out of proportion? I would be interested to hear responses from Facebook users. I would assume (admittedly ignorantly) that if you are confident enough in yourself, Facebook cannot negatively impact your life. Thoughts?

The Economist

“Happy Valentines Day :)”

There can be no doubt that social media has changed our society; changed the way we communicate, the way we obtain information, and, even now, the way we advocate. Social media has developed from a communication tool to a public forum that individuals use to judge one another.

In the recent weeks the National Football League (NFL) has been put under the lens of the social media microscope. First, Michael Sam, a highly decorated collegiate football player, declared that he was a homosexual male. Once drafted, this will mark the first time in the league’s history that a player who is openly homosexual will play the game. Although many athletes have declared their sexuality once they retired, no player had previous declared such sexuality while playing the game. Of course, Sam’s declaration was thrown into the social media fire. His courage, strength, and self-confidence was met with overwhelming support as athletes from various profession sports chimed in on the topic. Players from various NFL locker rooms took to Twitter and Facebook to support Sam and his journey to the NFL. In the eyes of the public, the NFL gained even more repute than it had previously.

Today, however, the NFL and some of its more notorious players have been summoned to the court of social justice located in the realm of social media. This morning, Ted Wells, an NFL investigator, released a 144 page report documenting instances of hazing, racial slurs, and other degrading behavior performed by Richie Incognito and other Miami Dolphin’s players. This controversy began in October 2013 when Incognito’s teammate Jonathan Martin quit profession football and was hospitalized for mental health. The NFL swiftly jumped in and hired Wells to conduct an investigation.

In reaction to this incident, many took to social media. Some individuals, including NFL players and analysts, believed that Martin was over reacting and should have confronted Incognito. Others rallied behind Martin and deemed Incognito a bully. But no matter what most people believed, expectations changed with the release of the 144 page report. On Espn’s NFL Insiders, airing 3pm Eastern Time, tweets were read indicating the shock of most at the findings. One individual, who was skeptic that Martin’s allegations had merit, admitted that their perspective had changed.

In the shadow of this controversy is Incognito’s tweet from Wednesday stating, “The truth is going to bury you and your entire ‘camp’”. Incognito took to twitter again today after the report had been released, “Pleeeeease Stop The Hate. Happy Valentines Day :)”.

In a controversy as notorious as this, involving a league as acclaimed as the NFL, all eyes are now fixed upon Roger Goodell and other NFL officials. In today’s society, social media has become the quintessential courtroom and all of us, the jury. We obtain information from social media and use it to make “informed decisions.” Then, we use it to either condemn or exonerate those in the spotlight. Social media, whether we like it or not, has become a mechanism for impacting societal justice. This trend will only grow in the future and attorneys should be ready for trial by Twitter.

For more information see ESPN’s web article entitled “Incognito, others tormented Martin”.

Juror Tweets Updates During the Trial… Thoughts?

A juror tweets informational updates about a trial she is serving on. The updates are considered public information that the press and media may report and is not confidential. Her tweets do not state her opinion or a conclusion about the case. After day 3 of the trial, the defense attorney becomes aware of the tweets. At this point in the trial, the prosecution has rested its case. The judge has also instructed the jury at the beginning of the trial to not blog, Google, Tweet or Facebook post anything about the trial. Does the defense attorney have an ethical obligation to alert the court and the prosecutor?

As for an attorney’s ethical obligation to reveal such information, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct have not kept pace with technological advancements. Further, these rules may be unclear as to when an attorney must report a juror to the court. Take a look at Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal, which “requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person… intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.”

Also, Model Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal comment 12 states:

“Lawyers have a special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process, such as bribing, intimidating or otherwise unlawfully communicating with a witness, juror, court official or other participant in the proceeding, unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence [,] or failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so.”

Does the defense attorney have an ethical obligation under Model Rule 3.3 and comment 12 of Rule 3.3 to report the jurors misconduct to the court? What would be the best way to handle this situation?

Thoughts?

Tag: Facebook

Facebook’s questionable expansion further into mobile.

Subscribe By Email