Learning Takeaways for week 4

Learning Takeaways: Week 4 of Class

1. A vast majority of people in the United States have witnessed or been involved in some form of anonymous online harassment. The presence of widespread online harassment, the practice of “trolling” and the “death of civility” has led some to argue that websites should not allow anonymity. Women are statistically more likely to favor this policy than men. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/20/about-1-in-5-victims-of-online-harassment-say-it-happened-in-the-comments-section/#
2. Some court systems in the United States allow plaintiffs to file suit under a pseudonym. The plaintiffs must have a good reason to be anonymous, and requests for anonymity may be denied. Circumstances, where anonymous suits may be allowed, include but are not limited to, when an individual or their family may be a risk of harm, if an individual may be at risk of retaliation, age, and subject of the suit.
3. Each case of an anonymous lawsuit is handled on a case by case basis, and courts use a balancing test to determine if the need for anonymity is greater or less than the right of the public to know. Debates on policy and law regarding this issue commonly revolve around this discussion as well.
4. The justification of anonymity in any situation can be extraordinarily circumstantial and subject to a wide range of opinion and belief that sway it one way or another.  

Personal Takeaway:

A lot of the questions asked this week were hard for me as I judged the effect anonymity not just in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion. A lot of us seemed to struggle with questions ranging from anonymous online posting to anonymous litigation, to anonymous publication in media sources. I hoped discussion would allow me to discern a side I more agree with. In all honesty, I’ve come away from this week stuck squarely in the middle of a murky gray area where I don’t know know if there is a catch-all right answer. And I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.

Q. OF THE WEEK NO. 3

When reporting on allegations of sexual assault against women, most news organizations will identify the alleged perpetrator, but will not identify the name of the alleged victim without express permission from the victim. Some argue this policy is unfair to the accused and allows women to make false accusations without any accountability.  Others argue that identifying the victim is too privacy-invasive, will essentially victimize a woman a second time and will discourage women from coming forward.  Do you agree with the above stated policy?

Weekly Takeaways: Week 3

1/22/2018

Who should be responsible for distribution and use of information?

• Government
• User
• Collector

staysafeonline.org for resources and information about privacy protection

EU vs. US Privacy Protections

• The EU views personal data as akin to a property right owned by the subject; the U.S. does not
• Increased protection of personal data and privacy
• Property right means that you own your personal data
• Ownership provides an opportunity to have control over your data because, like a personal possession, you have the power to sell it, rent it, or keep it private
• If someone takes your data it’s considered theft so you can take proper legal action
• Closest thing to this in the US is the common law ability to control the commercial use of your name or likeness
• Europe generally places privacy over free speech, US is the opposite
• If you belong to the EU you agree to subscribe to certain policies and activities
• Including personal data and privacy policies
• Europe requires express affirmative consent before personal data may be collected by others; the US allows implied consent and often requires “opting out” of default sharing
• “Opt in” vs “Opt out” system
• Europe addresses privacy globally; the U.S. addresses in specific contexts
• In US different laws for different situations and topics, no all encompassing laws
• Advantages and disadvantages to both; US approach provides greater specificity, EU approach provides a greater level of consistency
• Europe has recognized a general “right to forget;” the U.S. has done so only in very narrow and limited circumstances
• If information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive

Surprise! Your bank has been hacked

• Europe: any company with data breach must notify central authority and subject of breach within 3 days of breach or face fines
• US: breach notification laws vary from state to state and do not cover all types of personal data
• Can sue if you’ve been damaged, however can be hard to prove

Monitoring of Online Activities

• In europe
• Companies must have express permission to collect data about you
• You can request details about what infor about you a company has and how it is used
• In U.S.
• Permission to collect your personal data may be implied

Data collected on children

• EU: Digital services like facebook, snapchat, etc. must obtain parental consent before collecting on anyone under 16
• U.S.: COPPA federal law requires web sites and apps targeted to children to obtain parental consent before collecting data on anyone under age of 13

Forgetting that one bad night

• In Europe: may request search engine to remove link to news article if it is ‘inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive”
• Article remains on newspaper website, but effectively hidden
• In United States: First Amendment protects freedom to speak and publish
• No comprehensive law that allows deletion; California eraser law; state expungement laws
• The Star Wars Kid
• How would the invasion of Raza’s privacy been addressed in Europe or the United States?
• Could be considered excessive by European standards
• Given to 3rd party so no reasonable expectation of privacy by U.S. standards

Mason’s blog post

• “This story is just life in the internet age now”
• Agree or Disagree?
• Raza’s classmates went to a lot of trouble to convert video to computer file and post it online. That shows “how truly mean they were.”
• Is person’s intent important in privacy invasion discussions?
• Ghyslain Raza’s situation vs Logan Paul’s situation

1/24/2018

Question of the Week #2

• Should the U.S. Congress statutorily recognize a “right to be forgotten”
• 10 Yes
• 3 No
• Google has received requests to remove more than 2.1 million URLs
• Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are the sites delisted the most
• 56% of requests are denied
• Either didn’t fit criteria or was deemed that the public’s right to the information outweighed the individual’s privacy
• Often in cases of elected officials
• If a request to delink is accepted, should the delinking be global or just on the search results produced by the domain name in the country where the request originates?
• Potential infringement on the rights and laws of other countries if the request of someone to be delinked is honored globally
• Allows a country to act as a kind of “global censor”
• Arguments for global delinking include how easy it is to use a VPN or similar method to access information available in other countries
• Google content removal policies
• Child sexual abuse imagery
• Nude or sexually explicit images posted without the consent of the person
• Prompted by an epidemic of “revenge porn” in recent years
• Violation of copyright
• Certain Sensitive personal information
• SSN’s, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, images of signatures

Should the Right to Forget Apply to Mugshots?

• The case of celebrities throws a curveball at this question

The right to forget sounds appealing in the abstract, however in application there are many nuances and situational complications that make it hard to apply.

Takeaways

Something that I find very interesting is how a seemingly straightforward question or concept can get incredibly complicated once you actually dive into some specific scenarios. At first, the “Right to Forget” seemed like a no-brainer, something that I absolutely thought should be adopted by the U.S. However, after diving into some of the complexities I’m not so sure. I found myself conflicted when we were looking at the situations of sex offenders. After that, I have a new appreciation for how difficult law makers’ jobs are. It also highlighted the importance of being well-educated on all aspects of an issue before making judgments, something I believe more people should do when developing their political views. Another thing I find interesting from this week is the juxtaposition of policy between the United States and Europe. It seems that almost every policy related to privacy is completely different between the two. It’s crazy how much the priorities of society can differ by region.

"Puppyluvr89, do you solemnly swear you will tell the truth..." - Anonymity and Opaque Usernames

Opposition to Opaque Usernames

The Topic

The US supreme court has frequently protected anonymous speech under the 1^st amendment. A frequently cited example of this is McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, where Margaret McIntyre passed out pamphlets opposing a proposed school tax. She was sued by the Ohio Elections Commission for not including her name and address on said pamphlets. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Margaret’s favor.

Opposition to Anonymity

Several internet entities, such as Facebook, Google, and several news sites, oppose the use of opaque usernames in account creation to preserve the integrity of the site and maintain a sense of accountability for one’s actions. Additionally, law enforcement cannot prosecute those in harassment or defamation cases when the guilty party’s real identity is masked. Restraining orders are all but useless, and moderation is left to the site owners (and those that consider themselves “”bastions of free speech”” like Reddit, Yik Yak, etc. will do little in terms of moderation).

The issue of anonymity is not completely a digital one. Harvey Weinstein is currently being sued by an anonymous actress—Jane Doe. His representatives are frustrated, saying that he “can’t speak to anonymous allegations.” Many states—primarily California—allow plaintiffs to litigate under a pseudonym. In Does v. Advanced Textiles (2000), the US circuit Court devised a test to discern whether a  plaintiff’s anonymity is justifiable.

1.      If a plaintiff is at risk of retaliation (ex: suing an employer),

2.      If revealing the plaintiff’s name would violate their privacy in a personal matter, and

3.      If the plaintiff would be exposed to criminal prosecution by revealing their name.

Support of Anonymity

I personally support the use of anonymity online. In my experience, the ability to use opaque usernames has aided me in avoiding harassment in ways I couldn’t before. While Facebook holds that its users must remain transparent to maintain accountability, I’ve found that it simply makes it easier for bullies in real life to track me down. For example, I had issues when I was 13 with an adult attempting to groom me over Skype. While I didn’t share any of my information with him directly, he was able to find my facebook account through Skype, finding both my real name and location. There was nothing we could do other than close my Facebook and give empty threats of legal action. Now, I exclusively use sites that either don’t require my name (Tumblr, DeviantArt, etc.) or ones that can be tricked with a fake name (Google has no character restrictions for its names, so you can enter a pseudonym for the first name and a period for the last name.)

Also, retaliation against anonymous individuals may be difficult, but not impossible. YouTuber Chrissy Chambers was the first to successfully sue her former partner for harassment and misuse of private information after he recorded and uploaded seven videos of them having sex under a pseudonym. However, Chambers was able to reach a settlement with her partner, the terms of which dictate that she cannot share either his name or the amount awarded to her. While the UK ha made revenge porn illegal in April 2015, the videos were uploaded in 2011, making that law inapplicable.

Ultimately, I believe that where the law falls flat, moderation of anonymous content online falls to both site owners and peers. A real-name policy is often ineffective and easily circumvented, leaving honest individuals open to harassment.

Relevant Links
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/youtube-star-chrissy-chambers-wins-damages-in-landmark-uk-revenge-porn-case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v._Ohio_Elections_Commission
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1013945.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-weinstein-lawsuit/harvey-weinstein-sued-by-actress-who-claims-he-raped-her-in-2016-idUSKBN1DF0H5

sorry, I know that this is a few hours late--I overslept :'(

Q. OF THE WEEK NO. 2

Should the U.S. Congress statutorily recognize a "right to be forgotten"?

Takeaways for Week No. 2

 There is a trade off between  privacy and security. More security always requires a reduction in privacy. 

Top Stories:

• VTech, a Hong Kong manufacturer of children's toys had a data breach. Information on children location and approximate age were taken. Settled with the US government for $650,000.
• The US House extends FISA for 6 years allowing communication data for foreign nationals that are under investigation and US citizens they contact to be collected without a warrant.

1. "I have nothing to hide" argument.

• From the reading by Daniel Solove what it means when someone makes the argument “I have nothing to hide.”

 "You are saying that it’s OK for the government to infringe on the rights of potentially millions of your fellow Americans, possibly ruining their lives in the process. To me, the “I have nothing to hide” argument basically equates to “I don’t care what happens, so long as it doesn’t happen to me.” [33]"

• One main problem discussed in class about the "I have nothing to hide" argument stems from how information collected on an individual is used. The individual may be 'OK' with information being collected on them when they have a preconceived notion as to how the information will be used. In many cases an individual might be unaware of the extent to which information may be used or third parties to which it might be sold. 
• Stemming  from this notion it was noted that Privacy has two parts.
• How information is collected
• How information is used

2. Q of the Week

• It was noted that many of the responses to the Q of the Week used the 'home' and 'intimate' when describing common core characteristics of the right of privacy. 
• It was discussed whether the notion of 'home' should protect the privacy of any and all activity within the home, only sexual activities within the home, or only legal activities within the home. Although no definitive conclusion was reached, general consensus was that the home itself is private along with any activities therein; the only time this should ever be breached is by 'probable cause'. 
• It was discussed what activities/information should be considered 'intimate'. Some options given were sexual activity, medical history, finances, whether someone looks at pornography, as well as to which organizations someone belongs. The first two options,
  sexual activity and medical history, were decided to be intimate. It was noted that ones bank records/finances would generally be considered by those in the class to be 'intimate' information, however they aren't private in a legal sense as there is a 3rd party involved. When considering the final two options, whether someone looks at pornography and to which organizations someone belongs, although there were no definitive conclusions made general consensus was that an individual would need to decide for them self whether the information is 'intimate'. Someone who is only part of a chess club would not consider which organizations they are a part of to be 'intimate' information where as someone who is part of Alcoholics Anonymous might consider that 'intimate' information. The same logic can be extended to whether someone looks at  pornography. If someone does not look at  pornography, then this information might not be 'intimate' information to them and vice versa. 
• What is or is not 'intimate' information can also change with social perceptions. An example of this given in class was sexual orientation. At the present time with more liberal social perceptions, a person's sexual orientation would not be considered 'intimate' information and may often times be given out freely in a social situation or on college application essays. This is far different than in the mid-late 20th century where in social perceptions, sexual orientation was often viewed more cynically.

3. Who is best suited to decide whether an individual's right of exists and how it should be protected? Does it depend on context?

• Options given for who best to decide were: the individual, congress, the courts, or the collector of the information. 
• Conclusion: It depends on the context. 
• Examples given: The individual is not best suited to decide if they have a right to privacy regarding their health/travel. If the individual has been to a country with an Ebola outbreak, it is best for this information to be disclosed so the individual can be properly screened/processed. 
• The collector of the information, maybe google, should not decide what should or should not be protected or private, profit can too big of a deciding factor. It would be best if the individual had more control in this situation. 
• It was noted that Congress in their present state should not be trusted with such responsibility.