On The Internet Nobody Knows If You’re a 14-Year-Old Girl
In Wales, a 61-year-old woman suspected that her husband had been sharing elicit emails with a 14-year-old girl, and feared he was a pedophile. She logged on from a computer elsewhere in their home, pretended to be such a girl, and found he was all too willing to email revealing photos and attempt to seduce her. She promptly notified authorities, and even protested when he didn’t receive prison time. Good for her.

CNET gave her a tip of the hat, but thanks to a bad law made in response to an even worse case, the same act in the US might lead to the wife being federally prosecuted. Last year, 44-year-old Lori Drew was convicted under Federal law for computer hacking, because she falsely claimed to be a 16-year-old boy when harassing a child who later committed suicide.

By construing the use of a false identity as “unauthorized access to a computing system,” and equating it to hacking, Federal officials criminalized a common act.  They did this to get one seemingly bad person, but along the way could have ensnared virtuous acts as well.

After all, presenting a pretended identity is nothing new. Consider how common it is in Shakespeare. Nor is it inherently criminal, let alone a Federal crime. Fortunately, Lori Drew was convicted of lesser charges. But this is still an example of how a hard case made for a bad application of the law. And how later consequences can be hard to predict.

Turns out, impersonating a teenager online can be used for good, that is where its hasn’t been criminalized. Common law holds that we are the owners of our names, and anonymity has often been upheld as a speech right. So the use of a pseudonym absent malicious  intent seems both part of our culture, and a healthy relief for today’s closely tracked, segmented and surveiled visitors.

What’s in the water in St. Charles County?

You’ll recall that’s where Lori Drew was was indicted in a cyber bullying case related to the November 2006 suicide of teenager Megan Meier. The case, publicity and resulting legal responses have been a frequent topic here.

Now, another grown-up is facing felony harassment charges for allegedly placing a Craigslist “casual encounters” ad in the name of a teen ge girl. The ad, which included the child’s photo, phone number, and e-mail address, elicited exactly the kind of emails and text messages you might imagine.

Elizabeth Thrasher, 40, allegedly created the fake personal ad after the 17-year-old girl (whose mother is dating Thrasher’s ex) posted about her on MySpace. The charge of harassment seems non-controversial, and its likely to result in a more mundane prosecution than the federal hacking charges that were eventually brought against Drew.

If only the courts could exercise some prior restraint and keep the moms of  St. Charles County, Missouri, from mixing it up with the kids on MySpace.

In May, St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa filed suit against Twitter in California Superior Court, essentially claiming that someone using his name was posting comments that damaged his reputation and caused emotional distress. The suit also claims damage to La Russa’s trademark rights.

Ordinarily, I would have thought little about the case, believing it would get thrown out due to the legal precedent that says those who provide such services are not liable for the content that gets posted on them.

But there are two angles worth considering here. One is called the “right to publicity,” and the other is the evolving notion of digital identity.

The right to publicity is not a federal law, but many states do have it on their books, including California. The California law states:

Continued

In 2007, Facebook was valued by Microsoft at about $15 billion. It garners substantially less financial enthusiasm these days, at about $3-$4 billion. Not too shabby. Of course, the big question is why. Has it actually made a profit, or is this 1999 again? The valuation may very well be based upon the data Facebook contains about everyone that has ever used it. It’s a virtual gold mine of preferences, trends and connections, and Facebook has just amended its Terms of Service that gives it the right to keep all your information forever.

Previously, when a user left, all their information, including pictures, videos and writing, would evaporate. This is no longer the case; it’s too valuable, and perhaps this is the only way Facebook will ultimately make money: leeching off your personal information. It can use, sell or lease your data to anyone.

From the ToS:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses.

Here’s what was removed:

Continued

It seems that only natural disasters happen suddenly. Man-made ones begin small. The EU is adopting policies that secretly allow the police to hack into personal computers anywhere, at any time, for any reason – all without any judicial oversight, which would be the start of a man-made disaster.

According to the TimesOnline:

The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.

Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone’s UK computer and pass over any material gleaned.

Make no mistake – this is the equivalent of the police knocking down your door and entering your house at any time.
Continued

I can hear it now in Britain: “Fingers? Fingers? Where are your fingers?” Within the next 18 months, every police officer in the UK will be equipped with portable fingerprint scanners, and will be able to carry out identity checks at the drop of a bobby’s helmet.

The official (and implausible, given past history) claim is that such scans will not be permanently stored in a national database.

One of the companies bidding on the system, known as Mobile Identification At Scene (MIDAS), is American company Northrop-Grumman, better known as an aircraft company.

Beyond taking people’s fingerprints in the field and cross-checking against the national database, officials hope the next phase will include facial recognition. Now all they have to do is couple that with a retina-scan system mounted in a small robotic spider, and they’ll have a system Mr. Anderton of Future Crime, Inc. would be proud of.

Though there was initial skepticism, New York Magazine confirmed that really was him, and yes, he’s writing a movie about Facebook. Reuters and The Christian Science Monitor have covered it. He’s asked visitors to share their experiences and story ideas. Expect legal issues, at least in the plot, if not from his online collaborators.

A 23-year-old man who worked at a church in Wabash, Indiana, has been charged with felony stalking and misdemeanor harrassment.

MSNBC all but convicts him in its coverage, and complains that because he hasn’t been charged with a sexual crime, his Internet use will not be restricted. Bad journalism aside, when he appears in court to answer these charges on August 20th, there’s a good chance the charges will be tossed from court.

The man, who will undoubetedly soon to be named, used the identities of two women from his church to set up fake Facebook profiles and have online sex with other men while pretending to be the women. This went on for several years, and interestingly was discovered by the women’s pastor, who was researching his parishoners online.  OK, so bad journalism and icky church dynamics aside, there’s still more.

Law professor Susan Brenner notes in her blog CYB3RCRIM3 that this offense really doesn’t seem to be stalking. He impersonated people; he didn’t stalk them. Nor did he harrass, tresspass, or attempt to violate their privacy in any conventional sense. He infact wanted to escape their notice. Brenner wisely suggests that impersonation should be criminalized. Unfortunately, not everything icky is stalking. 

Forecast: lots of state and local anti-impersonation legislation most likely named after the young women involved in this case.

Most of the time, students who go to court are objecting to punishment for stunts such as making fake Facebook profiles about their principal. In this case it is the principal, Anna Draker, who went after offensive students in court.

Benjamin Schreiber and Ryan Todd, two 16-year-old Clark High School students, posted a false MySpace page about her in March 2006. The page was online for about a month before Draker learned of it. She contacted MySpace, who removed the page.

Besides disciplining the students and filing a criminal complaint, she also sought cash and accountability from the students and their parents due to defamation and emotional distress. The court of first hearing ruled that the exaggerated statements were not false assertions of fact, and so were not legally defamation.

The Texas appeals court upheld both the dismissal of the negligence and distress charges. The school’s punishment of the students was never challenged, and the principal’s claims for damages was entirely unsuccessful.

Perhaps because I’d likely have lampooned my high school faculty if the Internet were available to me then, I’m glad that faculty won’t be seeking civil damages for bad behavior. And, for any faculty from Moline High School who may be reading this entry, I’m still sorry for my past transgressions, which really did seem funny at the time.

This week I participated in a the wrap-up panel discussion at Boston stop of the Online Marketing Summit. My co-panelists were Blake Coyle, a sales exec from Google, Paul Hyland, Executive Producer, edweek.org, and Theresa Regli, Principal, CMS Watch.

As usual, I’m injecting personal observations along with what happened. If you were there too, please join in. My soapbox is your soapbox.

Why the Final Panel Discussion Is Cool
There are a few things that make the final discussion at the OMS conference unusual. Anyone who asks a question is rewarded with an early drink from the conference’s reception. This helps keep things lively. Also, it’s when participants can ask practitioners how they bring the day’s ideas together, and which ideas they in fact ignore or disagree with in practice. Last year, Mike Angiletta had comments about the need for online brand protection, which were seminal. I was interested in what would emerge, and was honored to get to kick in some thoughts.

Continued