Want to send a text message while out on a stroll? In part of New Jersey, hold still, or face a hefty fine.
Fort Lee, N.J. banned texting while walking, illustrating how far lawmakers are going to remedy the dangers of texting-induced distractions. Three pedestrians in Fort Lee died because of texting while walking in the past year, and officials decided to outlaw the habit to ramp up safety measures. With a population of around 32,000, the city has already issued 117 tickets since the law's start several weeks ago.
Fort Lee is the first place to start and enforce such strict guidelines. Philadelphia began a campaign to curb pedestrian texting, but the police issued reminders, not tickets, a far cry from Fort Lee's $85 fine.
Other cities and towns have mulled distracted walking bans in the past, but none have passed them.
Research indicates texters on the move are 60 percent more likely to swerve into someone, but issuing tickets for the behavior is a little extreme. People have also died while listening to their iPods and crossing the street, but for most people who listen to music while walking, multitasking is not a problem. The ban dismisses the idea of personal responsibility and shows what it looks like when governments try to micromanage citizen behavior.
Aside from the distracted texting deaths in Fort Lee, distracted texters have made the national news on several occasions recently, with a man nearly walking into a bear, a teenager in China walking into a sinkhole and woman falling into a fountain -- all stumbling because they glued their eyes to their phones.
Anyone doing anything besides staring directly at the road ahead is in danger of not paying attention, but one of the benefits of walking is you can't kill anyone (besides possibly yourself) by going off-course and bumping into them.
Distracted driving bans are reasonable, because the fatalities and stakes are much higher. But aside from isolated incidents, texting while walking is not particularly more treacherous than doing anything else while walking.
Fort Lee's decision to focus on distracted pedestrians, instead of accelerating a campaign to punish the far more lethal problem of distracted driving, misdirects valuable time and energy. Moreover, people may respect law enforcement authorities less if they receive tickets they perceive as unwarranted, which may lead to an increase in illegal behaviors with legitimate risks, like texting while driving.
Distracted pedestrian texting might cause problems on occasion, but responding with a blanket ban is not an appropriate response. Lawmakers should focus their energies on curbing practices that are dangerous on a wider level, like distracted driving, or they run the risk of undermining the authority of its law enforcement officials by asking them to carry out a petty ban.
If Fort Lee's policy takes hold in other cities, it will do more to inspire doubt about law enforcement's priorities than it will to keep people safe. Targeting distracted pedestrians demonstrates a profound lack of efficiency, as the town goes after people who are primarily nuisances, not dangers. Fort Lee and other areas contemplating a distracted pedestrian ban should refocus their efforts on distracted drivers and more pressing public safety concerns.
Want to send a text message while out on a stroll? In part of New Jersey, hold still, or face a hefty fine.
Fort Lee, N.J. banned texting while walking, illustrating how far lawmakers are going to remedy the dangers of texting-induced distractions. Three pedestrians in Fort Lee died because of texting while walking in the past year, and officials decided to outlaw the habit to ramp up safety measures. With a population of around 32,000, the city has already issued 117 tickets since the law's start several weeks ago.
Fort Lee is the first place to start and enforce such strict guidelines. Philadelphia began a campaign to curb pedestrian texting, but the police issued reminders, not tickets, a far cry from Fort Lee's $85 fine.
Other cities and towns have mulled distracted walking bans in the past, but none have passed them.
Research indicates texters on the move are 60 percent more likely to swerve into someone, but issuing tickets for the behavior is a little extreme. People have also died while listening to their iPods and crossing the street, but for most people who listen to music while walking, multitasking is not a problem. The ban dismisses the idea of personal responsibility and shows what it looks like when governments try to micromanage citizen behavior.
Aside from the distracted texting deaths in Fort Lee, distracted texters have made the national news on several occasions recently, with a man nearly walking into a bear, a teenager in China walking into a sinkhole and woman falling into a fountain -- all stumbling because they glued their eyes to their phones.
Anyone doing anything besides staring directly at the road ahead is in danger of not paying attention, but one of the benefits of walking is you can't kill anyone (besides possibly yourself) by going off-course and bumping into them.
Distracted driving bans are reasonable, because the fatalities and stakes are much higher. But aside from isolated incidents, texting while walking is not particularly more treacherous than doing anything else while walking.
Fort Lee's decision to focus on distracted pedestrians, instead of accelerating a campaign to punish the far more lethal problem of distracted driving, misdirects valuable time and energy. Moreover, people may respect law enforcement authorities less if they receive tickets they perceive as unwarranted, which may lead to an increase in illegal behaviors with legitimate risks, like texting while driving.
Distracted pedestrian texting might cause problems on occasion, but responding with a blanket ban is not an appropriate response. Lawmakers should focus their energies on curbing practices that are dangerous on a wider level, like distracted driving, or they run the risk of undermining the authority of its law enforcement officials by asking them to carry out a petty ban.
If Fort Lee's policy takes hold in other cities, it will do more to inspire doubt about law enforcement's priorities than it will to keep people safe. Targeting distracted pedestrians demonstrates a profound lack of efficiency, as the town goes after people who are primarily nuisances, not dangers. Fort Lee and other areas contemplating a distracted pedestrian ban should refocus their efforts on distracted drivers and more pressing public safety concerns.
Twitter is fighting to shield a Wall Street Occupier from demands for his network data, as the company campaigns to protect user privacy despite increasing government opposition.
The social media company seeks to overturn a subpoena demanding account records for Malcolm Harris, a Twitter user arrested during last fall's Occupy protests.
Police nabbed Harris for allegedly blocking the Brooklyn Bridge, though he maintains they first directed him to occupy the roadway.
District Attorney prosecutors, however, say the defendant's Twitter records will prove he was "well aware of the police instructions and acted with the intent of obstructing traffic on the bridge."
Furthermore, the prosecution maintains Harris has no right to challenge its subpoena, leaving Twitter as his only champion in the legal field.
"If the Order stands, Twitter will be put in the untenable position of either providing user communications and account information in response to all subpoenas or attempting to vindicate its users' rights by moving to quash these subpoenas itself," the company explained, hinting at future difficulties.
Twitter also argues the subpoena violates its Terms of Service in requesting user records across state lines without a warrant.
This isn't the first time Twitter has been ensnared in legal matters on users' behalf and likely won't be the last. But although the company continues to advocate for account privacy, it faces increasing government opposition to its efforts.
The San Francisco-based social media company tried its best to shield the account information of key WikiLeaks suspects, moving to suspend subpoenas against them, but ultimately failed in its attempt.
U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady in January ordered Twitter to hand over records, saying, "Petitioners knew or should have known that their IP information was subject to examination by Twitter."
The Department of Homeland Security appears to agree with Judge O'Grady, as it continues to monitor Twitter for signs of illegal activities. The DHS "Social Networking/Media Capability" program worries civil liberties organizations, who say it may help the government target political dissidents.
Amid such increasing scrutiny and under pressure from Boston police, the company recently disclosed the user information of a suspected hacker, prompting backlash from the ACLU.
Twitter is also preparing to censor tweets that foreign governments may find offensive, as in Germany and France where pro-Nazi content is prohibited. The company argues it would rather eliminate a handful of comments than find itself banned altogether in such countries.
The young social media company has a difficult road ahead as it seeks to protect user privacy while complying with law enforcement demands. Still, Twitter insists that while it must sometimes bow to government pressure, its mission remains unchanged.
"Yesterday we filed a motion in NYC to defend a user's voice," Twitter's legal counsel, Benjamin Lee, said in a Tweet on Tuesday. He added: "#corevalues," suggesting however the specific case is settled, the core issues will remain open for debate.
The jury ruled Google infringed on Oracle's Java language, but failed to reach a decision on whether the software fell under fair use laws, giving Google breathing room to fight back.
In Brief boils down complex events to give you the heart of the matter -- today and what it means for tomorrow -- clearly and simply.
What's Happening: The two tech giants are going head-to-head in a San Francisco court with a blockbuster eight-week trial. The rulings from the landmark case could hamstring Android's fortunes in the mobile market since Oracle alleges Google's Android OS violates Java patents it acquired with its acquisition of Java-maker Sun Microsystems.
Monday, the jury found Google violated the sequence, structure and organization of 37 Java API copyrights, but ran into an impasse on whether the infringement was fair use.
What's Really Happening: The question of fair use, which the jury set aside, will be crucial to determining damages. If the court decides Google's use of the Java programming tools is fair, the company would not be liable for damages in connection with some of Oracle's copyrights.
The jury's inconclusive decision about Google's actions, by failing to characterize them as fair or not, takes a lot of the bite out of this first early decision and is leaving many frustrated over possible implications.
What's Next: Court watchers are reluctant to read much into the partial verdict in the high stakes lawsuit, and are focusing instead on the next phases of the trial.
Since the fair use element is so important to the case, both sides are pushing for more clarification. Google motioned for a mistrial while Oracle motioned for the presiding judge in the case to issue a verdict. Federal Judge William Alsop is expected to make a ruling on both matters later in the week.
The Takeaway: An award in the high-stakes case could be substantial, with Oracle seeking about $1 billion in copyright damages. But before there is talk of awards, the court needs to decide whether APIs, or application programming interfaces, which are the tools used to develop the Java software language, can be copyrighted like software code.
"The core issue is whether the APIs here are copyrightable, and that's for the court to decide. We expect to prevail on this issue and Oracle's other claims," said Google spokesman Jim Prosser, adding, "the overwhelming evidence" demonstrated that Google knew it needed a license for Java.
Both Google and Oracle must respond to a series of copyright questions no later than May 10. Alsop immediately moved the trial forward to the next phase of the trial, dealing with patents, and a third phase involving possible damages follows.
Facebook is not constitutionally protected speech, according to a federal ruling, in a case where public employees were allegedly fired over "liking" their bosses' political opponent on their profiles.
Judge Raymond A. Jackson decided liking is fair game because users only have to click to associate, not generate text or speech. Analysts expect an appeal, and the matter, which could significantly impact hiring and firing practices within the U.S., will likely reach higher courts.
Although liking something on Facebook publicly presents a personal preference, the judge ruled it was not free speech, a decision some characterize as a mistake.
The ACLU pointed out, "Just because the Internet and social media tools are new, that does not mean they should be treated differently from more traditional forms of communication."
Although critics say the judge's ruling is unfair, people may want to think twice before "liking" potentially controversial topics on Facebook.
Lawmakers are trying to curtail the practice of employers and potential bosses demanding their workers' Facebook passwords, and with good reason, as snooping through personal online correspondence is both illegal and morally dubious.
Some employers believe looking at public Facebook statuses and photos is simply smart hiring, however, and people who regularly posts inflammatory, poorly worded public statuses or pictures of themselves doing something illegal are probably not going to be solid job material.
Even if Jackson had ruled the posts are protected speech, employers still may not take kindly to hiring or retaining someone with contentious views. And Facebook is known to track which pages followers frequent, even if they do not click the Like button, so especially prudent workers may want to avoid browsing through iffy pages in case their employers somehow discover their Internet history.
At this point, Internet-savvy workers should know whatever they put on social media can probably be discovered by authority figures. Yet people continue to defy common sense, posting pictures of illegal exploits that lead to arrest and torpedoing job opportunities by flaunting scandalous pictures or using bad language publicly online.
While prudent employees may think before "liking" divisive topics, employers will do well to realize clicking a button does not always signify the person feels strongly one way or the other, and turns a temporary whim into a permanent part of a person's online presence. Unless employers understand what they find on workers' Facebook pages may be years old, people looking for jobs later in life may find themselves haunted by moments in college they decided to like a fringe political party, off-color joke or marijuana reference.
The man who "liked" his bosses' political opponent, in this case, may have clicked that button before starting work, or briefly preferred him but changed his mind soon after. Liking something on Facebook takes less than a second and doesn't allow room for nuance or an explanation. Yet it can be interpreted as a fervent declaration of support and, as this ruling underscores, be used as a basis for employment termination.
Apple is fighting to keep a deposition of late co-founder Steve Jobs under wraps, as the company attempts to hold on to its trade secrets, and advantage, in the music business.
A collection of musicians wants access to a deposition given by Jobs in 2010, as they fight a new case against the Universal Music Group. Apple says attorneys for the plaintiffs failed to show why the deposition is pertinent to their case, and the company maintains a release of the documents would be competitively damaging.
The plaintiffs are also seeking access to a second deposition given by Apple's senior vice president Eddy Cue, along with other documents that contain more information about the company's relationships with record labels.
It's unknown whether the information in the depositions actually contains secret strategies that would hurt Apple's prospects in the music business, but it's clear the company does not want the contents revealed to competitors or the public. The judge in the original case cleared the courtroom of everyone but the jury when Job's deposition played, and Apple points to this fact as evidence to support its position that the documents should stay private.
Apple's desire to keep Job's deposition from coming to light stems from its belief that his statements contain "highly confidential and proprietary trade secrets." The iPod maker has worked hard for over a decade forging delicate relationships with music labels and record companies to build its iTunes Store.
With the cooperation of major record labels, who had been battling illegal downloading and flailing for a digital music solution of their own, iTunes became the go-to platform for digital music and Apple continues to enjoy a strong, well-established dominance with the help of the record industry.
If Job's deposition contains sensitive information about partners in the music industry Apple still has today, a public reveal of those details may damage these crucial relationships.
Apple's competitors will be the main beneficiaries if the court rules the plaintiff has the right to get access to Job's deposition. Amazon and a host of other download services have vied with Apple for a stake in the music market, but iTunes is far and away the market leader, though a host of streaming services is now emerging to challenge downloading platforms. If the industry is at another turning point, revealing Apple's strategies may harm the company as offerings like Spotify look to gain ground.
Details in the deposition may include financial figures for dealings between Apple and record companies, undisclosed terms of licensing agreements and tactics the company used to outperform competitors in the market. Any and all information may shed light on how Apple has built its lead in the digital music market.
A leak of the depositions can't change all that Apple has already done in the music business, but if any of the information in them helps competitors, it may cost the company millions.
Lawmakers are intensifying efforts to ban employers from asking job seekers for their Facebook passwords -- and it's about time.
What's the Plan?
Rep. Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.) and Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) introduced a bill banning employers from asking job candidates and current employees for their Facebook passwords, complete with a $10,000 fine.
The Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA) also extends to colleges and educational institutions, and looks to curb the practice of snooping through Facebook information to make hiring decisions.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) discussed drafting similar legislation, but this is the only federal bill in the hopper, following a ban on the practice from Maryland's state legislature.
Snooping Is Wrong
Demanding Facebook passwords violates users' privacy, not to mention the site's terms of service.
People use Facebook to send and receive private messages, photos and videos, just as they do e-mail. As the practice grows more widespread, a federal bill is necessary to quell the unscrupulous behavior.
Employers shy away from candidates who post pictures of themselves on social media boozing and wearing scandalous clothing, and they also look through their status updates for references to drugs, drinking and other undesirable activities. All of this is within bounds, and savvy job seekers should make sure to present a suitable public profile while looking for jobs. Rejecting someone based on an unacceptable social media persona shows good sense; smarter candidates go into interviews conscious of their online impressions.
Scouring candidates' personal social media information, however, and demanding access to an employee's entire profile, is a whole other matter. Even people who take care to post professional-caliber photos to their public page may make send racy pictures to lovers or dirty jokes to friends through Facebook's messaging function. The public profile on Facebook can be used as a supplement to the traditional resume, but the rest of it is tantamount to snooping through personal e-mails, letters and diary entries.
"We'll take action to protect the privacy and security of our users, whether by engaging policymakers or, where appropriate, by initiating legal action," said Facebook privacy chief Erin Egan, who likely welcomes the bill. Facebook is building political clout, and may use its alliances to push the bill forward, as the employer controversy undermines Facebook's privacy goals.
Personal E-Mail in Danger?
SNOPA is expected to face opposition from Republicans, but if it does not go through, employers will likely continue asking for Facebook passwords, which will erode public confidence in Facebook's security and cause major problems for the social network. Allowing this behavior to continue begs the question: is anything really private on the internet?
After all, if employers can read personal Facebook messages, what will stop them from asking for personal e-mail passwords as well, especially in a world where they are basically the same? Granting access to private electronic information to employers will have serious implications for the way people communicate.
If every e-mail and Facebook message sent has the potential to be read by bosses, teachers and admissions counselors, people will stop using these forums of communication for personal correspondence. This may be a big win for the postal service and land lines, but it will likely spark widespread outrage. Interests are lining up against SNOPA, but this bill will happen sooner or later, as people continue to fight for their rights to personal online communication.
Apple CEO Tim Cook said he'd "rather settle a patent lawsuit" than fight legal battles to a bitter finish, but a kinder, gentler Apple won't show up in the courtroom.
Tags:
