I refrained from writing about Charlie Sheen because, well, what's the point? Another warning about not memorializing your felonies on radio, TV and social networks?
But in a strange way, his firing today dovetails with my earlier post.
'Expensive' lawyers are deemed expendable, but apparently so is the (reportedly) highest-paid actor on TV.
It all depends on what your value is to someone else, doesn't it?
Two women engaged in a Facebook fight over $20. Now, one of them is dead; stabbed by the other.
And the writing is on the wall…
Michigan v. Bryant: "The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a shooting victim's statement to the police at a crime scene may be used in court, even if the victim later dies and cannot testify at a trial."
I've advocated for stringent protection of smartphones, through the use of a device password and paying close attention to the apps that are downloaded, among other things.
Criminals need love, too. So much so, that even after committing a crime – and jumping bail – they still can't contain themselves from looking for love on Facebook, MySpace, et al. You know how you're always hearing the warning, "That intriguing woman named Jenny you're IMing with might actually be a 13-year-old male student from Minnesota"?
Well, it also might be the last name of an anal-retentive, 28-year-old male bounty hunter who's tracking you across state lines. It also might – as it did in this case – lead to your recapture.
In a 140-character world, I hope you'll take the time to read this story, because you'll get a lot more out of it than you think. Not only do we see another convergence between the old, in the form of an 1873 Supreme Court case Taylor v. Taintor, and the new, social media, but I'd like you to focus on how much information Jenny gleans just from pouring over the skip's profiles.
If you're purely a data-tech, I understand how you may not care about any of this, but all we ever hear is how everyone wants everyone else to cooperate. In order to cooperate, it helps to understand how others do their jobs, why they do them the way they do them and what they're hoping to accomplish. Or, in simpler terms, the psychology of it.
The reality is, if people kept their mouths shut, you'd be amazed how many more cases would remain un-solved. While this is a criminal example, it applies in a civil context as well.
Loose lips do, indeed, sink ships. It's just that nowadays, the anchor is attached to social media.
Friday always seems to provide me with the perfect week-ending post.
Don't be concerned. They walked in through an unlocked door, but didn't take anything…
I explained how you do it (give up your privacy) in my prior post.
How they (hackers) do it:
Using nothing more than information his victims readily provided, this hacker gained access to their email and/or Facebook accounts; with highly embarrassing results.
I've long been baffled by sites that, purportedly in the interest of better security, require users to supply highly specific information like their father's middle name or what high school they attend(ed).
Oh, and the hacker? He said he did it because it's funny…
I’m not sure whether I can write about the shooting of a Congresswoman and nineteen others apolitically; but I’ll make an attempt to do so. Like most of you, I’ve followed the progression of the case, noting various profiles of the gunman that emerged – and the scramble of politicians to exploit one position or another for political gain. What struck me most was the public – and very prolific – profile of the gunman that has emerged. Usually, we’re dealing with a crime or civil wrong, then we go about the business of accumulating evidence after the fact. However, in this case, there was ample evidence that this person was someone who authorities should have been aware of – or have been made aware of by those who crossed paths with him. There’s just one problem:
We don’t arrest people for crimes they haven’t committed, yet.
But what can – and should – we as a society do in these situations, especially when we have the evidence? I’m not saying this tragedy could have been prevented, but at least this person should have been on a few more radar screens.
Now, as to the politicization of the event, I defer to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Rhetoric certainly may rise to the level of incitement. But we have the Brandenburg standard and I see a phrase missing from many of the discussions; “imminent lawless action”. Is Sarah Palin’s 'crosshair' map in the news because it’s relevant or because it pulls more eyeballs and sells more newspapers?
If I were still in law school, I suspect a professor would have posed that question. There is no honest assessment without proper context.
They laughed at the academy…
Do you remember when I said I maintain a password on my PDA? Do you remember how I said it sucks having a password on my PDA, but I felt it was extremely necessary? Fine – you don't remember. Here's what I said this past February:
"My PDA is password-protected. It's an incredible pain. I hate it. It makes things cumbersome. For all I know, it isn't even that effective. But you know what? At least I'm doing everything within my power to protect my client information."
Well, it just became a great decision. Why? Because the Supreme Court of California recently ruled that if arrested, the government is entitled to search your cellular device! The Court seems to be basing the opinion on the concept, misguided as it may be, that a cell phone is akin to a closed container, like a pack of cigarettes (prior 4th Amendment decisions hold that authorities may search containers under these circumstances). Meanwhile, a warrant is still required to search a briefcase!
Think about it for a moment. If this trend continues, how long do you think it'll be before this right is extended to portable devices in general? My next thought is, what if you happen to be driving your desktop PC to the local repairman at the time of your arrest?
As to the issue of password-protection, there's no case law controlling at the moment, so here's my 'ruling'; you have the right to remain silent. I don't care if I'm threatened with bodily harm – nobody will compel me to give them the password to my PDA (until the day arrives that a court of competent jurisdiction rules otherwise).
The Federal 9th Circuit already allows for warrantless tracking devices, but now this? So much for "liberal" California. Try your luck with the Ohio Supreme Court, among others, who disagree with this ruling.
But don't push your luck with the Supreme Court of the United States. With the current makeup of that body favoring government intrusion over individual protections, there's no Emerald City at the end of that yellow brick road.
Then again, a lot of powerful people carry cell phones – including Supreme Court justices. Maybe now's not the time for that vacation in wine country…