Retailers Website Violates #ADA @JDSupra

How to Write a Perfect #Blog POST !

Click To Enlarge

Via Salesforce

Senior Citizens Falling for Love Scams Online !

When investigators in the fraud watch department of Washington-based AARP received a call from a senior citizen late last year who had lost $300,000 to a con man she met on an Internet dating website, the organization looked into the problem. It found that in just the last six months of 2014, an estimated $82 million had been lost to online romance scams.

Read the article: SiliconValley

Germany Requires Facebook to Allow Fake Names

Facebook may not prevent its users from using fake names, a German privacy watchdog said, in the latest privacy setback for the U.S. company in Europe. The Hamburg data protection authority, which is responsible for policing Facebook in Germany, said the social network firm could not unilaterally change users’ chosen usernames to their real names, nor could it ask them for official ID.

Read the article: Reuters

European Parliament Seeks Steep Fines for Data Violations

Europe’s privacy watchdog is backing severe penalties for companies that violate new rules governing how companies handle customer data. Some in the E.U., including member states, believe that the maximum penalty for violating the law should be two percent of global revenue or 1 million Euros. The European Parliament has proposed a more severe penalty of five percent of global revenue or 100 million Euros.

Read the article: The Hill

China Working to Gain Some Control Over Internet

China is pushing to rewrite the rules of the global Internet, aiming to draw the world’s largest group of Internet users away from an interconnected global commons and to increasingly run parts of the Internet on China’s terms. It envisions a future in which governments patrol online discourse like border-control agents, rather than let the U.S., long the world’s digital leader, dictate the rules.

Facebook is Not a Picket Line @JDSupra

Best Practices in Social Media for Employers @JDSupra

#SocialMediaLaw Use for Clinical Trial Recruitment @JDSupra

Best words to increase traffic to your site

Courtesy of: Quick Sprout

Dear US Airways: Good Call Keeping Your Social Media Person

A passenger waits outside a gate at Sydney Airport in Sydney, Australia, on Aug. 29, 2013.

IMAGE: IAN WALDIE/BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES

BY BRIAN RIES

This post reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of Mashable as a publication.

The Twitter account belonging to US Airways remains dreadfully silent since it "inadvertently" tweeted a pornographic image of a woman and her toy Boeing 777 on Tuesday afternoon.

But good news: That silence is not because the employee at the center of the scandal was fired. The employee who mistakenly sent the tweet won't be let goas a result of the gaffe.

SEE ALSO: 38 Priceless Twitter Reactions to That NSFW US Airways Tweet

http://mashable.com/2014/04/15/us-airways-social-media-person/?utm_cid=mash-prod-email-topstories&utm_emailalert=daily&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily

Illinois Social Media Law Case Summaries

D. O. H., a minor, by OSAMA HADDAD and HIND HADDAD v. LAKE CENTRAL SCHOOL CORPORATION

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

This matter arises from the plaintiff, D.O.H.'s, claim that he was subject to bullying and harassment by fellow students at Lake Central High School, which caused him physical and emotional damages. The defendants served the plaintiffs with Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admissions on July 31, 2012. The plaintiffs answered the discovery requests on November 13, 2012, but omitted records pertaining to the requests to which they objected. Attorneys for both the plaintiffs and defendants exchanged letters and had telephone conversations which resulted in the narrowing of the scope of the requests with regard to D.O.H.'s social media activity. The plaintiffs subsequently produced additional material in response to the amended request but continued to object to some requests. A dispute remains between the parties as to undisclosed portions of D.O.H.'s Facebook profile, music, videos, withheld recordings in the plaintiff's possession, and a privilege log.

The plaintiffs allege that they have provided all social networking information believed to relate to any of the allegations in the complaint. The plaintiffs further claim that the defendants' requests for production of the remainder of D.O.H.'s social media records are objectionable because the scope is not sufficiently narrow and does not provide "specific guidance" as to the information sought. The defendants argue that they are entitled to full disclosure of D.O.H.'s social media records because it relates to his claims of bullying and harassment and that the discovery requests seek information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Ultimately, the court determined the appropriate scope of relevance to be: any profiles, postings, or messages (including status updates, wall comments, causes joined, groups joined, activity streams, blog entries) and SNS applications for the relevant time period "that reveal, refer, or relate to any emotion, feeling, or mental state, as well as communications that reveal, refer, or relate to events that could reasonably be expected to produce a significant emotion, feeling, or mental state."

The next item of contention between the parties is the disclosure of Plaintiff's music videos. The defendants' Request for Production Number 6 requested:

Electronic copies of each and every video or photograph in the possession or control of [D.O.H.] posted on YouTube, Facebook,Twitter, MySpace, or any other social media site of [D.O.H.'s] music or music videos.

Defendants' Request for Production Number 7 requested:

Any and all CD's, digital recordings or other medium containing music created by or featuring [D.O.H.].

Because the defendants were able to show that an additional music video exist, the plaintiffs were ordered to produce the recording to which the defendants have specifically referred as well as any and all of D.O.H.'s other music and music videos in audio and/or video format and a listing of all the songs and videos produced.

The third discovery matter at issue is the production of information regarding five voice recorded statements in the possession of the plaintiffs.

Finally, the plaintiffs request the scheduling of a status conference to enable the parties to set new deadlines through trial in this matter. The court ORDERS a telephonic status conference to be held on February 7, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. at which time the parties can discuss whether any further motions involving discovery disputes will be necessary and can set the necessary remaining deadlines. The court will initiate the call.

Based on the foregoing, the Defendants' Motion to Compel was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines GRANTED.

View Case at Google:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LAVONTE L. JOHNSON

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

On August 27, 2013, while viewing the Facebook pages for groups from his beat, Racine Police Officer Bryant Petersen found a music video on YouTube. In the video, Petersen observed the Defendant displaying what appeared to be an Smith and Wesson 32. caliber handgun. Officer Petersen knew the Defendant to be on extended supervision, so he alerted the Defendant's Probation Agent, Karen Hart. After viewing the video evidence Hart issued an Order to Detain Johnson.

On August 29, 2013, Petersen and another officer observed Johnson walking down the street; knowing of the Order to Detain, Petersen arrested Johnson. Petersen performed a custodial search of Johnson, during which search Petersen discovered a Smith and Wesson .32 caliber revolver in the left pocket of Johnson's shorts. Johnson sought to exclude the firearm on the grounds that Hart had no reasonable basis to issue the Order to Detain and, therefore, the arrest was improper, the custodial search was improper, and the firearm was unlawfully seized.

The court agreed with Magistrate Callahan that Johnson's conduct in the video provided a reasonable basis from which Hart concluded that Johnson had  violated the terms of his supervision, making the arrest proper.

Finally, Johnson also objected to Magistrate Callahan's order denying an evidentiary hearing in this matter. The only "definite" allegations of factual disputed Johnson articulated facts that were found not necessary to the determination of the motion. The Court found that an evidentiary hearing was not required in this case, and Johnson's request for a hearing was properly denied.

IT WAS ORDERED that the December 23, 2013 recommendation of Magistrate Judge William E. Callahan) that defendant Lavonte L. Johnson's motion to suppress be denied and the same is hereby ADOPTED; and

IT WAS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Lavonte L. Johnson's motion to suppress be was hereby DENIED.

View Case at Google: