Sue Scheff: Support Nikki – A Tribute to Nikki Catsouras
by Sue Scheff on May 21, 2009
When a family loses a child, I can’t even imagine the pain they endure. How they wake up the next day, how they feel, what they feel and how they go on with life. When a family loses a child in a tragic accident it seems it could only compound all the feelings of loss.
On October 31, 2006 the Catsouras family experienced the nightmare every parent fears – losing a teen in a tragic automobile accident.
The accident was the beginning of an emotional roller coaster. If you haven’t heard about this story, it is time to take a moment and help make a difference. Nikki Catsouras, after having a horrific car accident was dead on impact, the scene was described as shocking as Nikki’s head was nearly decapitated.
Can you even imagine as a parent, learning of this? Can you imagine living through this? As a parent advocate and a parent of two young adults now, I couldn’t even begin to imagine what this family has gone through.
What follows next is nothing short of evil, in my opinion. Shortly after Nikki was buried, her parents and sisters still in mourning, the Internet creeped into their lives in the most heinous way. Photo’s of Nikki’s crime scene were posted online! Yes, their daughter’s body, or what was left of it, was going viral! Where is justice? Who in God’s name would do this?
Please take a moment to read “A Tribute to Nikki Catsouras” and sign the petition to help create reasonable protection for personal privacy on the Internet.
Read Newsweek Updated Story on Nikki Catsouras – http://www.newsweek.com/id/199152
Tags: Cyber Abuse, Cyber Law, Free Speech, Internet Law, Internet Slander, Internet Slime, Michael Fertik, Nikki Catsouras, Online Abuse, Reputation Defender
Social Networking Sites – Careful What You Post – Today’s Facebook Could Be Tomorrow’s Casebook
by Sue Scheff on May 13, 2009
Source: Toronto Sun
More like Casebook
Social networking sites can sometimes make or break a case in court
Last year, for example, an Ottawa court heard that a civil servant had started a clandestine affair with an old friend she reconnected with through Facebook during a messy custody battle involving three kids.
In a Vancouver courtroom last month, defendants in a personal injury case produced photos from the plaintiff’s Facebook profile showing that while Myla Bagasbas was seeking $40,000 in damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment after a car accident, she was still able to kayak, hike and bike post-accident.
“Facebook will be seen as a gold mine for evidence in court cases,” said Ian Kerr, Canada Research Chair in ethics, law and technology at the University of Ottawa.
But it will also challenge the courts to further define the notion of personal privacy. In a precedent-setting case this year, a Toronto judge ordered that a man suing for physical injury in a car accident be cross-examined on the contents of his private Facebook profile. Justice David Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice overturned a previous court decision that called the defendant’s request to look for incriminating evidence a “fishing expedition.”
The very nature of Facebook is to share personal information with others, Brown wrote, and is likely to contain relevant information about how the plaintiff, John Leduc, had led his life since the accident. But if Leduc’s profile is private with restricted access, is that considered an invasion of privacy?
“The courts sometimes don’t get it,” Kerr said. “The tendency in judicial opinion and popular thinking is that once something is out in the public, there’s no such thing as privacy anymore. But that can’t be right because we all have curtains.”
For Facebook users, those curtains are our privacy settings. If our home is our castle, Facebook should also be considered a walled domain, Kerr said.
For example, while a member may post pictures from a beer bash the night before, that doesn’t mean they would take the same pictures to show off to their boss the next day, Kerr explained.
Likewise, in Murphy versus Perger, a judge ordered that the plaintiff, who was suing for claims of personal injury and loss of enjoyment of life after a car accident, produce copies of her Facebook pages showing photos of her engaging in social activities. In her judgment, Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Rady wrote “The plaintiff could not have a serious expectation of privacy given that 366 people have been granted access to the private site.”
But having 366 Facebook friends doesn’t entitle the rest of the world to view personal information meant only for certain eyes, said Avner Levin, director of the Privacy Institute at Toronto’s Ryerson University.
“It’s not how many people you share it with, it’s who you choose to share the information with,” Levin said. “The judge is missing the point. What’s important is not how many people are your friends, but who you choose to know you.”
While we’re able to compartmentalize and separate people in our lives offline by assigning titles to different spheres — co-workers, neighbours, family — the online world fails to recognize those distinctions, he added.
It’s a habit that spills over in the job hunt as well. Employers admit they rely heavily on information they glean about a candidate from Google searches and networking profile pages. But it’s an unfair screening process, Levin said, and attaches more value to people’s online identities — and sometimes third-party information — than the candidate they meet in real life.
“We need to suppress that tendency to go on Google and look people up. There’s already a process of hiring that works for them and has been working for years,” Levin said.
While we’re more likely to trust a direct source and treat gossip with skepticism in the offline world, the same can’t be said of online information.
Pruning online identities and putting a person’s best cyber-foot forward are services offered by companies such as DefendMyName, a personal PR service which posts positive information about a client and pushes down negative links in Google. ReputationDefender also destroys libelous, private or outdated content.
“A resume is no longer what you send to your employer,” said ReputationDefender CEO Michael Fertik. “More people look at Google as a resume.”
But instead of authenticating information found online, people are trusting secondary material and treating Google like God.
“What happens is in a court of law, you have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. On the Internet though, many decisions are based on lower standards,” Fertik said.
But is sanitizing a person’s online reputation of unflattering content an infringement of freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
“Only if you believe Google is the best and most accurate source of information,” Fertik said. “But I don’t think Google is God. I believe Google is a machine.”
Tags: Cyber Image, Cyber Law, Cyber Resume, Cyber Safety, Facebook, Google Image, Internet Gossip, Internet Law, Internet Safety, Michael Fertik, Online Image, Online Profile, Parenting Teens, Reputation Defender, ReputationDefender, Social Networking Sites, Sue Scheff, Virtual Resume
Sue Scheff: ReputationDefender, CEO – Specializes in Online Defamation
by Sue Scheff on Feb 27, 2009
Shortcomings in the Law Allow Cyberdefamation Campaigns, Legal Expert Says
Read entire article here: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/Story?id=6960397&page=1
The Law as an Accomplice
Legal experts, however, emphasized that the law protects Web sites like Topix. Even if the comments are considered defamatory by a court of law, Topix has no legal obligation to take the content down.
Defenders of the legal landscape argue that a change could stifle open discussion and free speech. But others maintain that in stories like this, regardless of who emerges, once the veil of anonymity is lifted, it is the law itself that is a co-conspirator.
“The law as it currently stands is an accomplice because it creates no incentive whatsoever for Web sites to review or police themselves from content that is potentially devastating to real people and real lives,” Michael Fertik, a lawyer who specializes in online defamation, told ABCNews.com.
Part of the problem, Fertik continued, is that laws that made sense at the birth of the Internet age have not matured. It takes years to redress online defamation problems under the present regime. But, in the meantime, libelous comments easily found through search engines can sideline both personal and professional lives.
Although privacy and free speech advocates worry that changes to the law could “chill” online speech, Fertik argued that “the law can easily catch up without destroying speech.”
But until then?
“The law provides the red dye for the scarlet letter,” Fertik said. “It provides the ink for the tattoo that people create on Web sites like this.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/Story?id=6960397&page=1
Tags: Cyber Law, Cyber Slander, Internet Defamation, Internet Law, Michael Fertik, Online Defamation, Online Harassment, Online Image, Online Slander, Reputation Defender, Sue Scheff
Dozier Internet Law: New Laws Are Coming
by Sue Scheff on Dec 16, 2008
Want to know more about the Internet and the Legal Boundaries? Leading Internet Specialist Attorney, John Dozier Jr. is one of the best in the country and represents some of the top businesses in the world.
Keep in touch with the Legal World of the Internet at John’s Blog at http://johndozierjr.typepad.com/dozierinternetlaw/
John W. Dozier, Jr. began practicing law in 1981 and has the highest rating (AV) by Martindale-Hubbell (meaning he has reached the “height of professional excellence and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity”). Mr. Dozier is a “Legal Elite for 2008″ as an Intellectual Property Lawyer through a peer selection process of the Virginia Bar Association and Virginia Business Magazine, was recognized through peer review as a “Super Lawyer” in Internet Law in the “Superlawyers” Magazine, was named as one of the top attorneys nationwide for 2008 in Intellectual Property Litigation in the Law and Politics Corporate Counsel Edition, and is peer selected as preeminent in the 2008 “Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers”.
Dozier Internet Law: New Laws Are Coming from Dec. 11th, 2008
Have we now reached the point in which the web is so out of control that governmental authorities in the form of prosecutors and state Attorney General offices feel compelled to act? A federal prosecutor in LA gets a conviction of a mom for violating the terms of use of Myspace. The New Jersey AG sues JuicyCampus.com for consumer protection violations based upon misrepresentations in its terms of use. A Colorado prosecutor brings criminal charges against a poster for allegedly defamatory comments on Craigslist. What’s going on here?
At Dozier Internet Law we have for a long while encouraged the self regulation and self policing of the web. History has told us that if that fails, government will get involved in one way or another. What we are seeing today is action by the executive and judicial branches of state government. Absent self policing, Congress, state legislators and even city and county governments will begin passing laws that will profoundly impact the web as we know it.
Codes of ethics for search engine optimization and affiliate marketers have been around for a while. So that industry is trying, at least. But what can web developers, web hosts, ISPs, and domain registrars do to send the message to the legislators that positive steps are being taken to provide a more safe, secure and civil Internet? Each can consider establishing strict guidelines and implementing them through their User Agreements and Acceptable Use Policies. Then, they can each aggressively enforce those rules. And there is no law prohibiting a business from deciding with whom it will do business absent discrimination being visited upon a protected class. And why not do so? In a time when Dozier Internet Law is defending lawsuits filed against webhosts, ISPs, software developers, and ESPs for the conduct of their customers, why would a legitimate business not police itself? There is no reason.
Recently we have seen high profile calls by Public Citizen for web hosts to be willing to bring their financial resources to the table to defend the misconduct of their customers. We, and other lawyers in the know, call this type of a host “bullet proof hosting” or “black hat hosting”. The reputation of these hosts, to say the least, is anything but stellar. No legitimate host would want those labels. And there is no business reason to do so. Is this the type of protection a web host would freely offer up to a $7 a month customer? Of course not.So, on the one hand we have a pressing need to self regulate and self police, and efforts being made within industries and specific businesses to do so. On the other hand, there is the move afoot by the free speech and anti-business property rights groups to do everything they can to encourage misconduct. If the Public Citizen advice is followed that would be an invitation for legislation, a solicitation for more governmental intervention by the executive and judicial branches, and a recipe for disaster.
Web hosts should not only develop, implement and enforce strict guidelines aimed at returning safety, security and sanity to the online world, but undertake an industry-wide effort to establish a Code of Ethics and performance standards and good practice certifications. “Bullet proof” and “black hat” hosts need not apply because, well, you are ruining it for everyone.
Some of these free speech expansionsist public interest groups might think that high profile litigation surrounding new laws would be a good thing for fund raising. I am sure it would be. Is their advice motivated by greed? Or just a fanatical, one sided perspective nurtured by their long standing support of the scofflaws?
Here’s the lesson, perhaps.
Is the message for web hosts that if you freely associate with outlaws, you find yourself thinking like them? I don’t know. But it could explain Public Citizen’s position
Tags: Cyber Law, Dozier Internet Law, Free Speech, Internet Defamation, Internet Law, Internet Lawyers, Internet Slander, John Dozier, Online Law, Online Slander, Sue Scheff
