Protip: After Committing Drunken Hit And Run...Don't Brag About It On Facebook

from the still-just-saying dept

You know those really sweet movies revolving around mastermind criminals? The ones where bumbling police have no shot at catching the guy/girl/team? Maybe it's the worst James Bond ever (barely edging out Timothy Dalton) stealing some artwork while fornicating with the Lethal Weapon girl. Or else it's half of Fight Club, the one interesting character from ER, and most of the remaining acting world robbing everyone on the planet in the most mind-numbingly convoluted manner possible. The lesson here is that criminals are freaking smart. So smart, in fact, that attempting to stop them is only playing into their hands, twisting police and federal agents around into pretzels wrapped more tightly than the knots on the ropes with which the criminals repelled out of the banks. You just can't stop crime, because criminals are too good.

It turns out that Hollywood (shockingly) is wrong. Criminals are stupid. More specifically, they stupidly like to brag about their crimes, such as the woman who robbed a bank and then created a YouTube video about it. And now we can add an idiotic, drunk driving teen to the list, who side-swiped a couple of cars on New Years Day and then rushed to Facebook to post about it.

Jacob Cox-Brown, 18, of Astoria, Ore., about 100 miles west of Portland, was with friends when, police say, he posted the status update on his Facebook page: "Drivin drunk... classsic ;) but to whoever's vehicle i hit i am sorry. :P"

In an interview with ABC affiliate KATU-TV in Portland, Cox-Brown says the post was meant as a joke. But his friends who spotted the update didn't see the humor behind it. Instead, one friend sent a private message to an Astoria police officer's personal Facebook account while another friend called police Sgt. Brian Aydt.

Acting like such an assclown that even the people that know you turn you in to the police... classic! Seriously, if I had to decide which was better evidence that this young man doesn't deserve a driver's license, either the fact that he drank and drove or that he thought it would be okay to say so on a public social media platform after hitting two cars... well, I mean both are horrible, but I think the latter is dumber and I don't want someone that dumb behind the wheel of anything.

No, not even that travesty of an automobile.
Image source: CC BY 2.0

Look, let's make this simple: don't drink and drive. But, if you do drink and drive, make sure you're the kind of moron that posts about it on social media. Better yet, just drive to the nearest police department, park your car on their front lawn, and pass out at their front door. You'll be saving us all a great deal of trouble.

Filed Under: crime, driving, drunk driving, social media
Companies: facebook

UK Interim Guidelines And Consultation On Prosecuting Cases Involving Social Networks

from the beyond-banter dept

As we reported a few months back, Keir Starmer, the UK's Director of Public Prosecutions, made the remarkable suggestion that "the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media." That debate has now arrived in the form of a UK consultation on "prosecutions involving social media communications," which takes as its starting point a series of interim guidelines for UK prosecutors when they are grappling with the freedom of speech issues raised by such cases. Here's how Starmer describes the initiative:

These interim guidelines are intended to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the need to uphold the criminal law.

They make a clear distinction between communications which amount to credible threats of violence, a targeted campaign of harassment against an individual or which breach court orders on the one hand, and other communications sent by social media, e.g. those that are grossly offensive, on the other.

The first group will be prosecuted robustly whereas the second group will only be prosecuted if they cross a high threshold; a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest if the communication is swiftly removed, blocked, not intended for a wide audience or not obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.

The interim guidelines thus protect the individual from threats or targeted harassment while protecting the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it.

Well, that remains to be seen. Drawing the line between distasteful banter and true harassment is bound to be a tricky exercise, but it's good that the UK Director of Public Prosecutions at least recognises that they are different, and that prosecutors must strive to distinguish between them when deciding whether to bring cases to court. The interim guidelines are available, and comments can be submitted until 13 March 2013.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: free speech, hate crimes, social media, uk

Kickalicious Uses YouTube Video To Get A Tryout With The NY Jets

from the YouKick dept

The stories of how YouTube has lowered the barrier for entry into the entertainment business are becoming common enough that they're no longer the shock they once were. Justin Bieber got himself noticed on YouTube, of course. Add to his story that of Rebecca Black and Gangnam Style and we begin to see YouTube as a steady platform for musical stardom. While there are certainly examples of movie magic happening on YouTube as well, this has long been the realm of music and weird memes.

That's what makes the story of Norwegian futbol player Havard Rugland so much fun, now that his YouTube kicking video has gone viral and led to a tryout with the New York Jets football squad. The video itself is insane, nearly as insane as Rugland potentially becoming an NFL kicker when he doesn't know a thing about the game.

The events leading to an NFL tryout from that video began when Rugland's futbol team disbanded. He had a booming leg, but now he had to figure out what to do with it. Apparently the Rockettes weren't hiring, because Rugland turned instead to videos of NFL kickers, studying how they performed their craft.

Using tools not typically associated with athletic prowess — YouTube, Facebook, Skype and Gmail — Rugland parlayed a homemade video that went viral into a tryout as a kicker with the Jets last week. He might be the first professional prospect to replace college football experience with social media savvy. In the four-minute video, posted on YouTube in mid-September under the title “Kickalicious,” the left-footed Rugland pulls off some of the most amusing tricks with a football since Lucy began duping Charlie Brown. It has been viewed more than 1.5 million times.

If you took the time to watch the video above and have managed to put your jaw back in place, all you really need to know about it is that the video has been independently verified as real and un-doctored. After the video went viral, a former NFL kicker in the States found it and connected with Rugland via Facebook. From there it was a simple matter of networking before Rugland was working out with American coaches. Soon after, the New York Jets came calling.

[Jets Assistant General Manager Scott] Cohen was reluctant to give details about last week’s workout but said the Jets saw enough to conclude that Rugland had a chance to play in the N.F.L. Rugland said the Jets wanted him to return for a workout in March. He added that he planned to spend the next few months in Norway practicing field goals and kickoffs (he is leaving the trick shots behind).

Rugland has also hired an agent, Jill McBride Baxter. After Rugland’s tryout with the Jets, Baxter said, the Oakland Raiders, the Green Bay Packers and the Philadelphia Eagles expressed interest in him.

He'll have to impress in March, but Rugland looks to have a good shot at becoming the first NFL football player resulting from a viral YouTube video.

Filed Under: communication, football, futbol, havard rugland, kickalicious. youtube, social media

NYTimes Columnist Proves That Among Billions Of Tweets Some People Say Stuff You Don't Care About

from the hot-damn dept

Recently, among the "oversharers" online, I saw a few people link to a column by NYTimes' columnist Roger Cohen, using one of the hackiest of all the "old curmudgeon" hack columns around: bitching about the banal stuff people talk about on Twitter. It's been done hundreds of times, and it's mostly been done better than Cohen's weak attempt. And, of course, it's easy to take such things out of context. The most common complaint that people make: people sharing info about their lunch, with the obvious presumption that no one could possibly care about what someone's eating for lunch. And yet... context matters greatly. Just as an example, one of the things that made me once realize how useful Twitter was in the early days, was when I saw someone I knew only via the internet, mention that he was eating lunch at a restaurant that I really liked in another city. Combined with the fact that I was going to be in that city the following week, we arranged to meet for lunch the following week at the same place. That "banal and useless" oversharing of info actually resulted in something quite useful: tidbits of information leading to a personal connection.

Separately, as I (and tons of others) have suggested in the past, if you find the people you follow say banal and silly things, follow better, more interesting people. And yet, as came out about a week after Cohen's silly column was published, it wasn't even a case of Cohen following silly and banal people. It turns out that, while he implied he was following such people on Twitter, in reality, he went searching for silly and banal tweets... and found them on a site that shares exactly that kind of info. Here's what his original column said:

Now I was determined to get through 2012 without doing a peevish column, not wishing to appear cantankerous or curmudgeonly, determined to be sunny and youthful as the times demand, but everyone has a tipping point. Mine occurred when I came across this tweet from Claire:

“Have such a volcanically deep zit laying roots in my chin that it feels like someone hit me with a right cross.”

Good to know, Claire.

I was just recovering from that when I found Deanna tweeting that she had “picked up pet food” and was heading to “the dreaded consult on colon stuff. The joys of turning 50.” As for Kate she let the world know the status of her labor: “Contractions 3 minutes apart and dilated at 2 cm.”

Social media does not mean that you have to be that social.

Except... apparently Cohen's "tipping point" did not actually come when he "came across" those tweets. That's because the second "tweet" was not actually a "tweet" and did not even happen in 2012 (or 2011 for that matter). The first was actually a tweet, but also did not occur in 2012 or 2011. And these weren't something that he just randomly "came across," but rather something he went looking for. You see, the NYT appended the following editor's note:

In this column, the author suggested that he was moved to talk about over-sharing and anxiety online after he came across two comments on Twitter. In fact, both comments were taken from a Web site, www.oversharers.com, that the writer consulted as part of his research. One of the comments, from Claire, was from a Twitter feed; the other, from Deanna, was from Facebook. They were both written in 2010. The writer should not have implied he stumbled across them while reading recent Twitter feeds.

In other words, this esteemed NYT columnist has proven that among the billions upon billions of tweets and Facebook status updates out there, if you go searching, you might possibly be able to find two (well, one tweet and one Facebook status update) in which someone says something that a person totally unconnected to them might find uninteresting. Perhaps we can soon expect one of the NYT's famed trend pieces, about how aging NYT columnists are now resorting to hacky, overdone premises, in which they misrepresent reality to try to make a point that doesn't really make much sense.

Filed Under: journalism, roger cohen, social media

Lebanese Internal Security Force Requests Facebook Passwords, Text Messages Of All Citizens In The Country

from the only-Zuckerberg-himself-has-more-data dept

Here at Techdirt, we're used to seeing national security agencies make overly broad requests for personal data, often under the premise that the crime (or crimes) committed justifies these fishing expeditions that are as "targeted" as dropping a nuke into the ocean and keeping everything that floats to the surface. Vague assurances are usually given that any data not considered "relevant" will be discarded or ignored and, as such, couldn't possibly be considered a violation of privacy.

The Lebanese Internal Security Force looks like it might take the prize for Most Overreaching Data Request. The ISF is still looking for those responsible for the assassination of intelligence chief Wissam al-Hassan in 2010 and figures that getting access to a little data might be helpful. All it's asking for is... everything.

[Telecommunications Minister Nicolas Sehnaoui] also revealed that his ministry received a request to hand over the contents of “text messages and passwords of Facebook and other internet accounts of all Lebanese across the country.”

There's nothing like an investigation whose list of suspects includes EVERY CITIZEN IN THE COUNTRY. The requested data doesn't include "political leaders and dignitaries," so at least there will be someone to pick the suspect out of the cross-Lebanon lineup.

Fortunately, this request was recommended for rejection, but at this point still remains in the "OPEN" file. The ISF has also issued two scaled down requests -- one for just everyone's SMS data -- and finally, one for just the SMS data from two provinces, covering only the two months prior to the attack of October 2010.

Even more fortunately, these slightly less inclusive requests also seem to be on their way to being rejected. The issue of the legality of these requests is still being debated, but early statements from the Interior Minister seem to indicate that nothing but the latest, most targeted request will even be considered, and even that may be deemed too broad. The Interior Minister did, however, make a brief argument for the final SMS data request, which features the sort of "promise" no citizen in their right mind should trust. 

The interior minister said that providing the SMS data to the security forces did not necessarily entail that all their contents will be revealed “and that the privacy of the Lebanese people will be violated.”

He added that it only the content of messages sent and received by those who came under the security forces’ suspicion will be accessed.

This would be a lot more convincing if the ISF hadn't already cast the entirety of Lebanon under suspicion with its first request. Handing over a bunch of private data to a national security force and trusting them to "just look at the bad guys' stuff" is just paving the infamous slippery slope for faster downhill travel.

Filed Under: lebanon, privacy, social media

Facebook 'Likes' Considered Key Evidence In 'Terrorist' Plot

from the signal-of-intent? dept

We've written a few times about how the FBI has been doing a bang up job foiling its own terrorist plots, so we're a bit skeptical every time we see headlines of some giant "terrorist bust." Almost every time, once you dig into the details, it involves some gullible, confused suckers who had no actual connection to terrorists, but were led along by FBI agents and informers until they were "convinced" to take part in a "plot" that was entirely concocted by the FBI. The latest headline-grabbing case of "arrested terrorists" actually appears like it may have slightly more substance, however, in that they may have actually had some sort of connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

That doesn't mean that there still aren't some oddities in the case, however. As a number of folks have sent over, reading through the indictment (also embedded below) shows that a significant chunk of the "evidence" seems to consist of Facebook "likes" and shared content among the accused. From the indictment:

I have reviewed several of the social media web sites for KABIR, SANTANA, DELEON, each of whom has posted radical prom jihad content on their respective pages. Additionally, portions of the social media show that DELEON and SANTANA "liked" postings on KABIR's Facebook page as early as May 2011.

Public items posted by KABIR to his social media accounts include photographs of himself, non-extremist content, radical Islamist content, and items reflecting a mistrust of mainstream media, abuses by the government, conspiracy theories, abuses by law enforcement, and the war in Afghanistan. KABIR's radical postings include videos and links to videos of Al-Qa'ida leader Anwar Al-Awlagi and his lectures, jihad--based videos regarding Afghanistan and elsewhere, videos depicting mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan and elsewhere, videos depicting terrorist training camps and related activities, videos depicting improvised explosive device attacks, and articles regarding the death of American soldiers in Afghanistan. For example, on July 6, 2012, KABIR shared a video to his public Facebook page entitled "Knights of Khorasan Islamic Emirate Operation Against an Army Base in Margha." This video, which I have reviewed, depicts a suicide bombing operation against a large base wherein the suicide- bomber drives an explosives-laden truck into a base and detonates it. The video bears the symbol of As-Sahab, Al-- Qa'ida's media wing, in the lower right corner.

KABIR has "shared" several postings with SANTANA and/or DELEON, both of whom have "liked" or commented on several other postings by KABIR, including the following:

a. On December 7, 2011, KABIR posted a video entitled "Black Flags of Khorasan: Part 2" that he later "shared" with DELEON.- (Based on my training and experience, conversations with other agents, and research of publicly available information, the black flag or banner refers to a traditional flag flown by Muhammad and later by Islamic military leaders. More recently, several jihadi groups and terrorists have adopted the black flag as a symbol for jihad and mujahideen fighters.)

b. On or about January 5, 2012, KABIR shared a link regarding negotiating with the Taliban. SANTANA "liked" the post and SANTANA and KABIR engaged in a public exchange of comments. SANTANA said, "they messed up know?" KABIR followed SANTANA's comment with a comment that appeared to include excerpts of a "Statement of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," which discussed the Taliban's desire to expel the United States from, and establish their own government in, Afghanistan. SANTANA replied to KABIR's comment by writing "Oh yea!!!!"

c. On January 5, 2012, KABIR posted a photo on his Facebook page depicting a veiled and covered woman leaning on an assault rifle. DELEON and KABIR exchanged comments on the photo wherein DELEON said "...hey bro are coming back? whats goin on? how long gona stay there?" KABIR replied "Naa.. not comin back... movin 4wd.... =D.... 1/2 way 2 my destination.. =D."

(Based on the context of this statement, including the fact that KABIR was then in Germany, I believe that KABIR intended to inform DELEON that he had commenced his journey to Afghanistan.)

d. On January 19, 2012, DELEON "liked" a shared link posted on KABIR's page of a video entitled "Dua of Sheikh Muhammad al Mohaisany masjid al haram makkah." The video, which I have reviewed as posted on KABIR's page, appears to be a prayer for the success of the mujahideen and features various photos including Al--Qa'ida leaders Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, 9/11 attacks, bloodied adults and children, and Islamic fighters. The video also calls for the liberation of Al-Aqsa, the mosque referenced in the 1998 Al-Qa'ida fatwa described above.

e. On February 13, 2012, SANTANA "liked" two shared video links on KABIR's page, including one for a video entitled "Imam Anwar al Awlaki -- A Story of Courage."

f. On May 28, 2012, KABIR posted two stories regarding the death of Al-Qa'ida leader Usama Bin Laden. DELEON "liked" both stories; SANTANA "liked" one.

g. On June 16, 2012, SANTANA "liked" a video, produced by Al--Qa'ida's media wing, As-Sahab, shared by KABIR to his Facebook page entitled "Ghuraba." This video, which I have reviewed, appears to depict life as a mujahideen fighter and includes several interviews. The video also features mujahideen fighters firing artillery.

h. On July 5, 2012, KABIR posted a photo featuring Al-Qa'ida leader Anwar Al-Awlaqi which contained a quote from Al-Awlaqi. DELEON "liked" and "shared" the photo.

i. On September 16, 2012, DELEON "liked" KABIR's shared link to a video entitled "The Truth Has Come and Falsehood has perished Part 1 Urdu." This video, which I have reviewed, is a production by As-Sahab and begins with footage of Al-Awlaqi and discusses the war in Afghanistan. The video also features current Al-Qa'ida leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

On September 17, 2012 SANTANA "liked" KABIR's post of an article entitled "A Public Talk by Ustadz Abu M Jibriel AR: The Truth of The 9/11 Jihad Operation, The Plots Of The Enemies and The Zionist Conspiracy."

There is, of course, other evidence including statements made by all the defendants. For all we know they may have actually been planning attacks on US targets and the indictment is entirely appropriate. But it certainly gives pause to suggest that "likes" and "shares" on Facebook are somehow evidence of terrorist intent. It could certainly be seen as having a chilling effect for anyone who might "like" or "share" content on Facebook that is critical of the US government.

Filed Under: fbi, likes, social media, terrorism
Companies: facebook

App Developer Hijacks Customer Twitter Accounts In An Attempt To Shame Pirates

from the and-here-comes-the-backlash dept

I've always had a bit of a soft spot for DRM in my heart, mostly because it makes me laugh. If you think about it, it's generally rather funny in its uselessness. Pirates don't care about it as they simply route around any DRM. Customers can certainly be annoyed, but they always end up with the same tools the pirates use to break the DRM on their purchased products. There's a question of legality in doing so, obviously, but generally nobody really seems to care all that much and software developers just end up in a DRM arms race against nobody, which is inherently funny. All the while, we get wonderful gems like Ubisoft's vuvuzela DRM, which was hysterical. Now, don't get me wrong, DRM sucks, but upon reading stories about its effects my range of emotions tends to be anywhere between annoyance and raucous laughter.

However, as content producers begin to wake up to the fail that is DRM, we've been discussing how using your fanbase and social constructs to shame pirates and reward customers is a better approach. And it is, but unlike DRM you better get it right, because if you screw it up the results are far beyond mild annoyance. Reader AdamR writes in about one such developer that screwed things up so badly that they ended up hijacking the Twitter accounts of some paying customers to post a "piracy confession" on their behalf.

If you search Twitter for the hashtag #softwarepirateconfession you'll find a stream of tweets stating, "How about we all stop using pirated iOS apps? I promise to stop. I really will. #softwarepirateconfession." There are many dozens of these tweets in the past day alone, all identical. So what's happening? It turns out that Enfour, the maker of a variety of dictionary apps, is auto-posting tweets to users' accounts to shame them for being pirates. But the auto-tweeting seems to be affecting a huge portion of its paid user base, not just those who actually stole the apps.

How could this happen, you wonder? Well, funny story. One proposed explanation is that there's a common tool used by people who jailbreak their iPhones and still want apps from Apple's app store, called Installous, that Enfour's apps were detecting and then, upon using the app and gaining permission to access a user's Twitter account it posted the "apology". However, others are saying that it's occurring on phones that are in fact not jailbroken. Either way, these are people that paid for the app, not pirates as their own hijacked Twitter accounts purport them to be. As one customer, Sean O'Brien, noted:

"Apparently, even though I paid nearly $25.00 for it, something in the code of this app identified me a owning a pirated copy. It then asked for access to my Twitter account through my iPhone. I gave it access because, it's the American Heritage Dictionary! If any app can be trusted with my Twitter account, it ought to be my expensive dictionary app. But no, it tweeted the following message:

"How about we all stop using pirated iOS apps? I promise to stop. I really will. #softwarepirateconfession"

As you can imagine, the paying customers are pissed. Enfour has since released an apologetic statement, first in Japanese (ostensibly folks trying to use their Enfour dictionaries to translate the apology were called pirates again), and then in English on Twitter. They also have rushed out an updated version of the app they claim fixes the "bug", but the complaints are still coming in.

Here's a piece of advice for all you developers out there. Yes, social shaming can work far better than lawsuits and DRM, but you had damned well better get it right. Hijacking the Twitter feeds of your customers, or anyone actually, is taking things in the wrong direction.

Filed Under: false accusations, hijacking, piracy, social media
Companies: enfour, twitter

UK Looking To Cement Its New Anti-Free Speech Reputation By Arresting Man For Posting Photo Of A Burning Poppy

from the making-a-mockery-of-free-speech dept

Lately, we've noted a string of questionable prosecutions in the UK over statements made by people on social networks. These posts may have been in poor taste, but hardly seemed like the sort of thing that ought to be criminal. While UK prosecutors are finally admitting that perhaps they need to rethink speech online, it apparently hasn't stopped these kinds of arrests and prosecutions. Police, over the weekend, arrested someone for posting an image of a burning poppy. The poppy is seen as a memorial sign for those who died in battle, and the image was posted on "Remembrance Sunday." While some might say this in poor taste, it certainly seems like a legitimate form of political protest... but apparently not to law enforcement in the UK:

"A man from Aylesham has tonight been arrested on suspicion of malicious telecommunications," Kent police said in a statement after the arrest. "This follows a posting on a social network site of a burning poppy. He is currently in police custody awaiting interview."

The article notes that free speech advocates in the UK are speaking out in response to this, pointing out how ridiculous it is -- and noting that part of the reason why soldiers fought wars for the UK was to provide freedoms like the ability to express their views on things like war.

Filed Under: free speech, poppies, rememberance day, social media, uk

Abuse Of India's Information Technology Act Results In India's First Arrested Twitter User

from the #guinnessbookofhorribleworldrecords dept

India's somewhat schizophrenic relationship with privacy and freedom of speech has been discussed here before. The Indian government, on one hand, seems to want to do the right thing and safeguard its citizens from censorship and surveillance... but only up to a point. Once the going gets rough (i.e., outbreaks of violence, demonstrations), the government begins ramping up its surveillance and cracking down on free speakers.

Given this background, it's a bit surprising to hear that India has only just recently chalked up its first Twitter-related arrest. After all, the UK and the US have been doing it for years already. The person on the receiving end of this unfortunate record-setting event made the mistake of criticizing a politician (of course).

On 20 October, he (Ravi Srinivasan) posted a tweet to his 16 followers saying that Karti Chidambaram, a politician belonging to India's ruling Congress party and son of Finance Minister P Chidambaram, had "amassed more wealth than Vadra".

He was alluding to Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi, who was at the centre of a political row after allegations over his links with a top Indian property firm.

This message ("got reports that karthick chidambaram has amassed more wealth than vadra") went out to all of 16 followers and somehow found its way to Karti himself, who responded like anyone else would when mildly insulted: by contacting law enforcement...

Karti Chidambaram (@KartiPC) did not take the tweet in good humour and filed a police complaint on 29 October.

… which immediately responded with the sort of speed reserved for appeasing angry politicians.

They arrested Mr Srinivasan early next morning, charged him under Section 66A of India's Information Technology [IT] Act, and demanded 15 days of police custody.

Srinivasan's single allegation could have been addressed through India's libel laws, but since that route takes time and money, the offended politician instead used the police department to take care of the "problem" by using the "sweeping power" of Section 66A of the IT Act of 2000.

[Section 66A] can send you to jail for three years for sending an email or other electronic message that "causes annoyance or inconvenience".

On the face of it, this protects citizens against online harassment.

In reality, the law is more often used by the state as a weapon against dissent. In each such case, police action has been swift and harsh.

In April, the West Bengal government led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee used Section 66A against a teacher who had emailed to friends a cartoon that was mildly critical of her.

Loosely worded laws, ostensibly designed to "protect" citizens, usually devolve into tools of censorship. For some strange reason, those with the most power are the ones who feel the most "threatened" by open criticism and dissent. It's little wonder that legislators are more than willing to push through open-ended "cyberlaws" that can be bent to fit any situation. The end result is this fact, which is perhaps least surprising of all:

And, interestingly, Section 66A has never been used against politicians.

To Srinivasan's credit, he refused to back down from his statement. In addition, his arrest and subsequent appearance on television led to him gaining another 2,300 followers, many of whom are wondering if his arrest was tied to his anti-corruption campaigning. Despite the public support of the arrested tweeter, the politician behind his arrest remains unrepentant, tweeting out this amazing statement in his own defense:

"Free speech is subject to reasonable restrictions. I have a right to seek constitutional/legal remedies over defamatory/scurrilous tweets."

There's nothing "reasonable" about arresting someone rather than following the "constitutional/legal remedies" set up by India's libel law. This is simple thug tactics being deployed by someone operating without fear of reprisal. Section 66A needs to be cleaned up if freedom of speech and privacy are going to be protected, rather than just paid lip service at convenient intervals.

Filed Under: arrests, india, politics, social media, speech
Companies: twitter

California Ballot Measure Will Likely Ban Anonymous Speech If You Were Arrested For Urinating In Public

from the that's-not-constitutional dept

Here in California, of course, we have a number of (often excessively confusing) ballot measures every election season, and this year is no exception. I've spent a fair amount of time going through the various ballot measures myself in determining how I'd vote on them, and it quickly becomes clear that -- as with so much in government -- the devil is in the details, and the details are often hidden or purposely shoved aside. Take, for example, ballot measure 35. The "summary" version of it sounds like something that many would support:

Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.

Human trafficking is certainly a big concern. However, there are a lot of details here. That "disclose Internet activities and identities" part is already a concern. And, many of us have heard the horror stories of how states put all sorts of people on "sex offenders" lists for things that aren't sex offenses -- things like urinating in public or (perhaps slightly more controversial) two teenagers engaging in consensual sexual activity.

It turns out that the internet stuff in this bill is massively problematic. Unfortunately, some "voter guides" completely ignore the issue. A popular California voting guide from KCET barely mentions the internet part of the measure, and positions it as something of a no-brainer to support. But, if you look at the details, they're pretty scary:

Proposition 35 would force individuals to provide law enforcement with information about online accounts that are wholly unrelated to criminal activity – such as political discussion groups, book review sites, or blogs. In today’s online world, users may set up accounts on websites to communicate with family members, discuss medical conditions, participate in political advocacy, or even listen to Internet radio. An individual on the registered sex offender list would be forced to report each of these accounts to law enforcement within 24 hours of setting it up – or find themselves in jail. This will have a powerful chilling effect on free speech rights of tens of thousands of Californians.

While Proposition 35 facilitates government monitoring of certain online accounts, it doesn’t add safeguards for civil liberties or privacy. The proposition leaves unclear who will be tasked with reviewing these lists of online accounts for accuracy and completeness, and there are few limits on how the data could be used. There is substantial risk that law enforcement will subject these accounts to additional monitoring, and that officials might turn these lists of accounts over to ISPs or popular web services and solicit the assistance of these intermediaries in monitoring users’ online behavior. For example, if an individual on the registered sex offender list participates in an online political forum, will law enforcement actively monitor these discussion groups? Will other individuals on that forum face increased scrutiny because one of the forum members is on the registry? There are also risks to online accounts that are shared between household members – such as joint Netflix accounts – which will be subject to the same rules of reporting to the police, thus implicating the data of individuals who have committed no crime other than sharing an account with someone on the registry.

The LA Times posted a forceful editorial against the provision, noting that it's all about punching emotional buttons rather than a legitimate law enforcement issue:

It punches most of the usual emotional buttons, appealing to voters' sympathy for victims and disgust with perpetrators who are the closest thing the United States has to modern-day slavers. And in calling for longer sentences, it follows the same assumptions as other tough-on-crime initiatives born in fear or anger rather than thought: Punish people more severely and they will offend less. Merely by being on the ballot, the measure implies that the Legislature would not or could not deal with the issue.

That's false. Lawmakers became convinced in 2005 that state and federal laws dealing with kidnapping, extortion and other crimes were not keeping up with human trafficking, and they adopted a law that was painstakingly crafted with input from law enforcement, victims, advocates and others. That law has been fine-tuned more than a dozen times over the last seven years as experience was gained, people were prosecuted and legal holes were discovered and plugged. Proposition 35 would subvert that work and substitute a web of poorly drafted laws that expand the sex offender registry, divert resources from victims and, most important, could not be adjusted to keep up with changing circumstances without yet another ballot measure.

The ACLU has stepped up and tried to remind people that it's likely unconstitutional in that it removes the right to speak anonymously over issues completely unrelated to any crime:

The Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously. The initiative infringes on that right of registrants to speak anonymously on the Internet, because it means a person who is convicted decades ago of a relatively minor sex offense, such as indecent exposure, or a crime that has absolutely nothing to do with either children or the use of the Internet, must now inform the police of any name he or she uses in any sort of online discussion group.

Unfortunately, because this is an emotional issue, it's likely going to pass, and then there's going to be a huge mess as it's put into practice, followed almost certainly by lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the provision. Emotionally driven issues tend to make bad law, and it seems like this is no exception.

Filed Under: anonymity, california, free speech, human trafficking, sex offenders, social media