Vote Trump 2016 !

Vote Trump 2016 !
Trump 2016
Showing posts with label #Youtube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Youtube. Show all posts

Monday, December 29, 2014

Awesome Things Brands Did on #YouTube, #Facebook & #Twitter in 2014 [INFOGRAPHIC]

Posted on December 29th 2014


Awesome Things Brands Did on YouTube, Facebook & Twitter in 2014 [INFOGRAPHIC]
Facebook organic reach may have tanked, but that didn't stop brands from doing awesome things on social media.
Here's an infographic timeline, created by Unmetric, that highlights the most shared advertising campaigns, tweets and videos.
Laugh, cry and cringe at the best Facebook, Twitter and YouTube highlights of 2014: how many can you remember?
Awesome Things Brands Did On YouTube, Facebook and Twitter In 2014 - #infographic

Friday, April 04, 2014

Google Defends Effort to Block Anti-Islamic YouTube Clip

, The Recorder

Neal Katyal, Hogan Lovells partner
Neal Katyal, Hogan Lovells partner
SAN FRANCISCO — Google is doing its best with available technology to block access to "Innocence of Muslims" on YouTube, and shouldn't be held in contempt for allegedly violating a Ninth Circuit order, the company argued in a weekend filing. The company has disabled some 1,400 copies of the anti-Islamic movie since the appellate court ordered it taken down Feb. 26, with 20 employees spending more than 100 hours on the process, Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal wrote in opposition to Cindy Lee Garcia's March 25 motion for sanctions.

Garcia and her attorney, M. Cris Armenta, argue that Google "has not even made a pro forma attempt to comply with the order," disabling only a few copies and leaving in their place a "snide message."

Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202649152129/Google-Defends-Effort-to-Block-Anti-Islamic-YouTube-Clip#ixzz2xvUtmmZ1

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Turkey Blocks Google DNS, YouTube Could Be Next



Posted  by  


tory
The social media crackdown in Turkey continues, as the country has moved to block backdoor access to communications services like Twitter through Google DNS. YouTube, another service offered by the global search giant, might be next after refusing to remove videos alleging government corruption.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government called the ban a “preventive measure” after the service had been used by citizens to spread allegations of corruption within the government. “Twitter has been used as a means to carry out systematic character assassinations by circulating illegally acquired recordings, fake and fabricated records of wiretapping,” the government said in a statement.
After Twitter users found themselves unable to access Twitter beginning Thursday, many turned to Google’s DNS service as a way to circumvent the ban. By typing in Google’s DNS addresses (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) into their browser, they were able to continue using Twitter. That proved only a temporary solution, however, as the government has removed access to that service as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's BLOCK RIGHT BACK! The Arabs have been using their tecn for years to attack our web sites, but they are real boos compared to Americans.  So why don't we muster our forces and HACK BACK?  Let's ATTACK their web sites the same way they have attacked ours!


Tuesday, March 18, 2014

YouTube Enlists ‘Trusted Flaggers’ to Police Videos

Agence France-Presse
GoogleGOOG +0.94% has given roughly 200 people and organizations, including a British police unit, the ability to “flag” up to 20 YouTube videos at once to be reviewed for violating the site’s guidelines.
The Financial Times last week reported that the U.K. Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit has been using its “super flagger” authority to seek reviews – and removal – of videos it considers extremist.
The news sparked concern that Google lets the U.K. government censor videos that it doesn’t like, and prompted Google to disclose more details about the program. Any user can ask for a video to reviewed. Participants in the super flagger program, begun as a pilot in 2012, can seek reviews of 20 videos at once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O Brave New World, that has such things in it. 

Monday, March 17, 2014

Avoiding A Digital Catastrophe: Considerations for Managing Social Media Risks

National Law Review March 17, 2014

Social media have revolutionized how financial institutions interact with customers and the public. Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, LinkedIn, Flickr, YouTube, Yelp and other social media sites permit institutions to market products and services, provide incentives, facilitate new account applications, invite performance feedback, recruit employees, and receive and respond to complaints in new and effective ways.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/avoiding-digital-catastrophe-considerations-managing-social-media-risks



Sunday, March 16, 2014

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:

Friday, February 21, 2014

YouTube Gets Google’s Card Design And Puts Stronger Focus On Playlists

  

YouTube is rolling out a new design to its users today that takes its cues from the “card-like” design Google now uses on many of its other web and mobile apps. The aim of the redesign, Google tells me, is to emphasize playlists by putting them front and center in the left sidebar.
In addition, however, the company also center-aligned the site to make it look better on any screen and give it a “feeling similar to the mobile apps you’re spending almost half your YouTube time with.” This move allows it to easily employ the card look, which is clearly the main organizational metaphor for any Google product these days.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Snowden docs reveal British spies snooped on YouTube and Facebook

NBC News has obtained documents Edward Snowden leaked before he came to Russia showing how British intelligence agencies analyze YouTube videos, Facebook 'likes' and tweets
By Richard Esposito, Matthew Cole and Mark Schone, with Glenn Greenwald,
Special Contributor
The British government can tap into the cables carrying the world’s web traffic at will and spy on what people are doing on some of the world’s most popular social media sites, including YouTube, all without the knowledge or consent of the companies.
Documents taken from the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden and obtained by NBC News detail how British cyber spies demonstrated a pilot program to their U.S. partners in 2012 in which they were able to monitor YouTube in real time and collect addresses from the billions of videos watched daily, as well as some user information, for analysis. At the time the documents were printed, they were also able to spy on Facebook and Twitter.

Friday, December 06, 2013

Judge throws out Google privacy policy case, notes “users are the real product”

google dc
photo: Google
SUMMARY:
Last year, Google combined the privacy policies of Gmail, YouTube and all its other products into a single policy. A US judge this week explained why, unlike in Europe, this is okay.

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Zimmerman v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University, et al.

While On Line communications offers remarkable ease of use and unequaled opportunities for global communication, it also provides a cloak of anonymity that can shield everything from jokes to serious crimes. College campus jokers and famous for their long life and now have Social Media and the Internet to extend the reach of their disguise.  This can make for little more than a good practical joke but can often get ouf of hand and find the protagonists facing on another in Court.  Ball State became such a forum for this phenomena in 2011 and the facts and legal proceedings are recounted herein. 

In the Fall of 2011, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Sumwalt (collectively, "the Students") were both enrolled at Ball State. The Students had previously lived in an off-campus apartment with another male Ball State student (the "Target"). Shortly after moving out, the Students began playing a prank on the Target which involved creating a Facebook page for a fictitious female high school sophomore named "Ashley." Using this fictitious Facebook page, the Students posed as "Ashley" and initiated several on-line conversations with the Target. In mid-October 2011, the Target proposed that he and "Ashley" meet and go to a movie together, and "Ashley" agreed to meet him at a local movie theatre. "Ashley" communicated with the Target via text messaging leading up to his arrival at the movie theatre. When the Target entered the movie theatre lobby, the Students videotaped him with a cell phone video camera and told him that "Ashley" was fictitious and that the Target had actually been communicating primarily with them. The Students then posted their videotape of the Target on YouTube with the title "[the Target] is a pedophile. On November 1, 2011, Dr. Gillilan, Director of the OSRCS, received correspondence from the Target complaining of harassment by the Students. In the correspondence, the Target detailed how the Students left a sandwich to rot in his room when they were living together, and described the Facebook communications and the ultimate creation and posting of the YouTube video. On November 5, 2011, the OSRCS sent the Students letters informing them of their alleged involvement in potential violations of the Conduct Code. The letters were substantially the same, and stated in part: Recently, [the OSRCS] was notified of your involvement in a possible violation of the [Conduct Code]. Specifically, you have been accused of policy violation(s) that occurred on or around October 14, 2011 that include but are not limited by the following:Harassment and Privacy violations were alleged. Ball State investigaged these allegations and based on its investigation, the OSRCS charged the Students each with two Conduct Code violations: (1) harassment; and (2) invasion of privacy. After an investigation, the students were appropriately sanctioned and based on the sanctions decision, the Students were not allowed to register for classes for the Spring 2012, Summer 2012, or Fall 2012 semesters. On October 11, 2012, the Students filed a Complaint for Injunction and Other Equitable and Legal Relief against the Board of Trustees of Ball State, Dr. Gora, Dr. Hargrave, and Dr. Gillilan. They sued "pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983", and asserted claims for First Amendment violations against Drs. Gillilan and Hargrave under color of state law, First Amendment violations against Dr. Gora for "institutional liability," due process violations against Drs. Gillilan and Hargrave, and due process violations against Dr. Gora for "institutional liability."

The Students sought: (1) a permanent injunction against Ball State and its administrators, faculty or staff, prohibiting Ball State from enforcing the Conduct Code, (2) an order requiring Ball State to "remove all references to this incident from the Students' files"; (3) an order requiring Ball State to notify all Ball State students of the limitations on enforcement of the Conduct Code; (4) actual damages foor Mr. Sumwalt, including the increased tuition he paid to attend Butler Unniversity for his final semester, (5) actual damages for Mr. Zimmerman, including lost wages; (6) compensatory damages for "emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation and damage to [their] personal and academic reputation..."; (7) punitive damages; and (8) attorneys' fees and costs.

With respect to the First Amendment claim, the Students' claims did not fare well. Assuming that creating the Facebook page and posting communications on that page constituted speech protected by the First Amendment, the status of that speech as protected was not clearly established when the Students were disciplined. The Alvarez decision itself, which the Students rely upon for their argument that the creation of the Facebook page and postings on that page are protected speech, establishes the previous uncertainty surrounding the issue of whether false speech is protected by the First Amendment. See Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2553 (Justice Breyer, concurring, stated "I must concede, as the Government points out, that this Court has frequently said or implied that false factual statements enjoy little First Amendment protection") and 2557 (Justice Alito, dissenting, stated "[b]y holding that the First Amendment nevertheless shields these lies, the Court breaks sharply from a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest").

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTED the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Board of Trustees of Ball State and Drs. Gora, Hargrave, and Gillian, DENIED the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Students, and DENIED AS MOOT Mr. Zimmerman's Motion for Emergency Hearing on Preliminary Injunction.

Certainly, all involved in this innocent prank gone awry shall never forget the lessons learned when jokes lead to Legal action.

JACOB ZIMMERMAN AND SEAN SUMWALT, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BALL STATE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., Defendants.
No. 1:12-cv-01475-JMS-DML.
United States District Court,
S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
April 15, 2013.


  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4615667852182006167&q=Facebook&hl=en&as_sdt=4,14,112,127,268,269,270,271,272,314,315,331,332,333,334,335,377,378&as_ylo=2013

Sunday, June 23, 2013

15 'll get ya Twenty (720 ILCS 5/11-6)

Illinois law is catching up with the social media blitz and resultant crimes.

(720 ILCS 5/11-6) (from Ch. 38, par. 11-6) 
    Sec. 11-6. Indecent solicitation of a child. 
    (a) A person of the age of 17 years and upwards commits indecent solicitation of a child if the person, with the intent that the offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, or aggravated criminal sexual abuse be committed, knowingly solicits a child or one whom he or she believes to be a child to perform an act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct as defined in Section 11-0.1 of this Code. 
    (a-5) A person of the age of 17 years and upwards commits indecent solicitation of a child if the person knowingly discusses an act of sexual conduct or sexual penetration with a child or with one whom he or she believes to be a child by means of the Internet with the intent that the offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, or aggravated criminal sexual abuse be committed.
    (a-6) It is not a defense to subsection (a-5) that the person did not solicit the child to perform sexual conduct or sexual penetration with the person. 
    (b) Definitions. As used in this Section: 
        "Solicit" means to command, authorize, urge, incite,
    
request, or advise another to perform an act by any means including, but not limited to, in person, over the phone, in writing, by computer, or by advertisement of any kind.
        "Child" means a person under 17 years of age. 
        "Internet" has the meaning set forth in Section
    
16-0.1 of this Code.
        "Sexual penetration" or "sexual conduct" are defined
    
in Section 11-0.1 of this Code.
    (c) Sentence. Indecent solicitation of a child under subsection (a) is: 
        (1) a Class 1 felony when the act, if done, would be
    
predatory criminal sexual assault of a child or aggravated criminal sexual assault;
        (2) a Class 2 felony when the act, if done, would be
    
criminal sexual assault;
        (3) a Class 3 felony when the act, if done, would be
    
aggravated criminal sexual abuse.
    Indecent solicitation of a child under subsection (a-5) is a Class 4 felony. 
(Source: P.A. 96-1551, eff. 7-1-11; 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)