Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Tuesday Triple Trivia for February 24, 2015

TTT103 Questions. 3 Hints. 3 Answers. Every Tuesday.

1. It used to be the Luccheses and the Gambinos that one had to fear.  Now it’s this mob:

Hint:

Image result for angry social media posts comments images

Answer: forget about the mafia, it’s the digital mob who is out to get you if you do or say something bad — at least when it comes to social media.  A single lapse of judgment can create long-term havoc in the life of a social media user — economically, psychologically and socially.   Everyone makes mistakes but social media errors, which may be presented to thousands of judges and juries, have a more pervasive effect.  First, crowds can be more “violent” than individuals (kind of like looting), second, it is easier to be more malevolent in front of a screen than in person (kind of like online bullying).  So, say I mistakenly offend John by making fun of Alzheimer’s while we are hanging out together at Starbucks.  John tells me his mother succumbed to Alzheimer’s and is hurt by my insensitivity.  I immediately apologize to John and also feel guilty about all the other people suffering from this horrible disease.  Case likely closed.  Now,  if I had done the same thing, yet posted tactless and foolish remarks on Facebook or Twitter, the consequences would very likely be amplified and could be far-reaching.  For example, consider the following real-life situation.  For Halloween, a young woman decided to dress up as a Boston Marathon bombing victim and posted a photo of herself in costume on Twitter.  An actual bombing victim later tweeted at her, “[y]ou should be ashamed, my mother lost both her legs and I almost died.”  Thereafter, angry mobs unearthed the woman’s personal information.  She received online threats and was also fired from her job as a result of advertising her poor choice of a Halloween costume.   This begs the question, should people lose their jobs over things unrelated to or outside the scope of employment?   Conor Friedersdorf, staff writer at The Atlantic says absolutely not.  Friedersdorf proposes a new social norm.  He says, “my strong suspicion is that we’d all be better off if Americans developed a broad aversion to people being fired for public missteps that have nothing to do with their jobs. That norm would do more good than bad even if you think some people deserve to be fired.” However, many professions have ethical or more stringent codes in place to punish behavior that although unrelated to the execution of one’s job, nonetheless casts a negative light on the profession as a whole.  In some cases, such “conduct unbecoming” may even be considered a crime (e.g. conduct unbecoming an officer or gentleman).   Do we agree with Friedersdorf about the establishment of a general norm preventing the loss of one’s job resulting from callous remarks, depictions or photographs?  What if there is a pattern as opposed to a single instance of error in judgment?  Read more here.

2. Who’s got you covered in more ways than one?

Hint:

Answer: Independence Day clothing company espouses the “convergence of technology and fashion.”  With no buttons, zippers or tags, dressing is a cinch.  The clothing line does boast a “GPS option” pocket for many styles created to hold the “Empower” personal GPS tracker to keep track of your kid or significant other.  Wonder what happens when the sweatshirt ends up in the washing machine…with the tracker?  Read the details here.

3. I spy with my little eye…

Hint:

Answer: you are a little low on cash and sleeping on an acquaintance’s couch for awhile.  Or, you are on vacation in the Caribbean, renting a private villa.  Either way, beware of the eye in the sky.   Hidden video cameras are becoming very popular in private homes, zooming in on houseguests when and where they least expect it.   What houseguests should and can expect is a reasonable measure of privacy stemming from the archaic Wiretap Act when a camera that is not visible captures not just video but audio as well.  Good news?  Not really.  How many people will go through the trouble of filing a lawsuit, especially when they are sleeping on someone’s futon because they are low on funds?  Also, while those same folks may have legal recourse against the camera’s owner, other interested parties may, nonetheless, gain access to the camera’s footage.  For instance, one manufacturer “doesn’t warn customers that the government could seize the cloud-based video from their cameras or tap into their live-streams, and doesn’t state under which circumstances the company would comply with such a request.” That same manufacturer further provides that “a very select number of employees (senior engineering leadership) have the ability to access video data only when legally required.”  Who does this protect? While the camera’s owner may be aware of a manufacturer’s policies, the oblivious couchguest is not.  Read the story here.