A New Worry for Parents and Teens 01/18/2009 12:46:09 pm by Dan Krohn

	Sometimes things are too easy, so we do them before we think much about what we are doing. Such is the case in our new world of wireless communication. We can call anyone from almost anywhere. We can send text messages. And we can instantly send photographs. We can receive text messages and photos from our friends and send them on to other people that we know - sometimes a lot of people at the same time. This writer is of the Woodstock generation. We were a pretty wild bunch when we were young; and though many young people consider us old sticks, we understand that teenagers and young adults can lack discretion. Heck, we often did. But we did not have the technology to communicate quickly. Generally our indiscretions were not shared with the world. All of which leads to the concern addressed by this message: “sexting”. According to numerous news reports, increasingly teens are having fun taking nude photos of themselves and their friends and sending them to their boyfriends or girlfriends or others. A remote tease if you will. Of course, there can be quite a bit of peer pressure to participate. The problem is that once sent, there’s no controlling where the photos will go next. Sometimes photos are sent to a boyfriend’s cell phone, who in turn sends it to his buddies to show off the hot chick he’s dating, who in turn might send the nude photos anywhere. Some photos have appeared on popular Internet sites such as MySpace and Facebook, posted by recipients who either think it cute or perhaps are acting maliciously. Though we live in a permissive society, it has not become that permissive. There are employers who routinely search the Web for information as to applicants. Increasingly we can expect people and organizations to search the Web for information on many other decisions. Would it be inappropriate for a college to do so as part of its admission process? The distribution of nude photos can comeback to bite the photo’s subject in many ways. (Certainly it is incumbent on those who come across such information to remember that they, too, were young and foolish once and not judge too harshly.) Lastly, there is the matter of criminal law. Teens and young adults involved in this activity, though often naive and innocent in intent, are in many instances involved in the possession and distribution of child pornography. Enough said.

	[comments?]

Civility Online 01/18/2009 12:12:16 pm by Dan Krohn

	The last couple of weeks have seen more than the usual number of Internet related libel cases in the news. Without commenting on the particular lawsuits (which have seen plenty of comments online already, insightful and insipid), there is something underlying the stories and many of the comments made in reaction which is deeply troubling. The ethic of the Old West held that nothing was more cowardly or loathsome than shooting a man in the back. There was and is truth and goodness in that philosophy. As this blogger has observed before, the new big hit crime of this century is character assassination. For some reason, it is now considered not only appropriate but acceptable by many to take pot shots at peoples’ reputations online, often anonymously. Somehow the freedom of expression brought forth by the Internet has been distorted into authorization of unbridled gossip. Character assassination when not looking the target in the eye is indeed cowardly and reprehensible. The legal system has long contained a civil remedy for dealing with public false accusations: suits for slander or libel. But the new connectivity has brought such torts into a new realm, and how the law will develop over the next few years remains to be seen. If a person accuses you of something nasty to your face without others present, there is no legal remedy of this kind. Only when the accuser passes false accusations to third parties does the law of defamation come into play. From a purely legal standpoint, this issue is a tricky one. Few are more ardent supporters of free speech than this blogger. Clearly there are some entertainment personalities who promote their careers through the tabloids. But there are those who do not. Politicians who by the nature of their choice of careers (at least in the U.S.) are considered fair game. Famous personalities must show actual malice to prevail in the courts. But in a decent society, the limits on human activity are not guided solely by what is against the law or the possible subject of a lawsuit, but by a generally understood and accepted understanding of propriety. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects websites from liability for defamatory comments posted by others. Traditional defamation law subjects anyone who repeats untrue damaging commentary to liability. That’s why the statute was passed. Web 2.0 could not exist without it. But at some point our society could find that it is necessary to curb abuse. That immunity from suit can be changed or repealed. Certainly anonymity could be limited. In days of old, a malicious gossip would be ostracized from his/her community. This blogger wonders: now that a community exists online, is it the obligation of those who use and appreciate the interactive aspects of the Internet to implement some kind of equivalent? People have feelings. Those feelings are real, and they are entitled to respect. One can argue that we ought not be hurt by anonymous comments; but being human, we are. So to those out there who misuse the newfound ability to slam someone’s reputation, this blogger says: If you haven’t got the guts to look someone in the eye and speak your mind, then leave it unsaid - and unwritten.

	[comments?]

Is it a crime? 01/01/2009 10:13:58 am by Dan Krohn

	Here in Texas it's long been considered cowardly to shoot a man in the back. Looking back on 2008, one of the most disturbing developments is that such cowardice has been taken one step further. Though to this blogger's knowledge, no one has found a direct way to kill someone over the Internet, people have found ways to increase the likelihood of premature death. There's the famous case of the mother who falsely befriended then emotionally attacked an "enemy" of her daughter on MySpace, which ended in suicide and criminal charges. (The legal aspects of the case are very problematical. However, the prosecution went forward.) But there have been other cases around the world where someone has threatened suicide, and over the Internet encouragement was offered that may or may not have been a factor. It has been reported that mass suicides have been organized over the Internet in Japan. (Some years ago while driving to work listening to the radio, this blogger heard a news report of a person threatening to leap off of a bridge and thereby holding up traffic. In what has always struck me as an act of moral depravity, the DJ ranted about the traffic jam then played the musical excerpt "You might as well jump". Funny?) Unfortunately, we presently lack effective laws for dealing with such situations; and this blogger greatly doubts that effective laws can readily be adopted and enforced. Who wants to be indicted because their home computer had become part of a nefarious botnet that sent hundreds of emails to someone out of their address book encouraging them to end it all. Few, if any of us, have adequate security in place to guard absolutely against such an event. The technology proof issues exceed the sophistication of most prosecutors' offices, let alone the sophistication of most juries. Then there are the tricky issues of jurisdiction. The Internet does not recognize national borders, and this blogger has repeatedly noted how humbling this is for legislators. The United States outlaws online casino gambling. Anyone want to bet there isn't any? There are extradition treaties among some countries for some crimes, but the system is hardly either foolproof or thorough. Perhaps this writer's greatest concern lies in the fact that when the rule of law is ineffective, people lose respect for the law. If you and a couple hundred people you know were all to lose children to suicide encouraged by online moral vacuums disguised as human beings. And if each of you were by some means able to identify a person behind some of the sick encouragement involved. And if there were no adequate remedy through the legal system. What are the odds that all two hundred of you would be content to bury your children, go home, and blog your anguish?

	[2 comments]