I’m not sure whether to be amused or upset by this story, but I thought it was worth a quick post.  It seems that a petulant 19 year-old in Florida took the law into his own hands when he was told by a Starbucks customer that he couldn’t use the customer’s laptop to check his Facebook account. 

So what did this genius do?  What anyone would do, of course.  Wait a little while and check his account from home, you ask?  No, that would take too long.  And since we live in a society of instant gratification, he decided to snatch the laptop and run out of Starbucks.  Needless to say, he was apprehended in the parking lot and arrested.  Now he’s been charged with robbery (which is a felony). 

I guess when you need your hit, you need your hit.  And you won’t let something as trivial as the law stand in your way.  Just ask any drug addict.  Is Facebook really that addictive?  I haven’t yet experienced any tremors or nightmares from failing to check my various e-mail accounts, but maybe I’m just not hip enough.

While this guy is clearly an idiot, it does portend ominous things for the future.  Facebook junkies.  Social networking lifers.  Will they have entire wings in drug rehab centers or prisons for people like this?  I know it sounds ridiculous, but with social networking sites like Facebook growing by 4 to 5 million users a week, the power of the medium can’t be underestimated. 

Some people will obviously take it to the extreme.  Some always do, but it does make me wonder.  And I wonder what this guy will do when he can’t check Facebook from his prison cell.  The withdrawal pains may be incapacitating.

I know advertisers are constantly looking to determine how effective their ads are, but this story is just creepy.  Not necessarily for what it is at the moment—which seems harmless—but for what it can (and will) lead to in the not-too-distant future.  It seems that advertisers, in their never-ending quest to gather as much information as they can about you to supposedly better target your preferences, have now started to embed cameras in video screens that display advertisements.  These cameras watch you as you watch the ad.

The cameras can apparently determine—with a fair degree of accuracy—the person’s gender, approximate age range, and ethnicity (in some cases).  As a result, the advertisements can tailor themselves to the person viewing them.  Thus, according to the article, men could see ads for razors, women could view cosmetics ads, and teens could check-out the latest video game advertisements. 

The advertising industry hasn’t quite decided what to call these ads yet, but early contenders include such terms as “smart ads,” ”proactive merchandising,” “gaze tracking,” or the lengthier “face-based audience measurement.”  Sounds innocuous, doesn’t it? The article is quick to point out that the technology doesn’t identify people individually, but only the categories mentioned above. 

So it’s far from perfect.  For now.  But does anyone truly think that it won’t be vastly improved in the future?  Advanced face-tracking technology is already used by various government agencies and security companies.  How long do you think it will be until these types of ads can identify people individually, correlate and aggregate the information, and then engage in “hyper-targeting” (for lack of a better word)?

Imagine staring at an advertisement for Ex-Lax at a local mall for a few seconds only to return home and find a $5.00 off coupon waiting for you in your e-mail.  Or how about ads from Ex-Lax’s competitors, with the heading, “Constipated”?  Or better yet, how about if it’s sent directly to your cell phone or PDA, especially when you walk past a drugstore?  There’s nothing like instant gratification these days. 

Think it won’t happen?  It’s only a matter of time.  Of course, Congress or the states can step in and try to outlaw these eventual types of advertising practices (which will hopefully withstand First Amendment challenges), but there’s no indication that they will—especially given the considerable strength of the advertising lobby.  

Advertisers will undoubtedly claim that such methods will allow them to tailor their message to people who not only want their products, but need them.  I can see the pitch to Congress now during the hearings:  “Our methods allow us to deliver specifically-targeted content to consumers who will not only benefit from use of our product, but will also be given the opportunity to derive savings and . . .” blah, blah, blah.  Remember, the business of America is business, and advertising is the great facilitator of that.

And of course, the issue is never just the collection and aggregation of the data, but what happens to it, who can see it, how it’s used, under what circumstances it can be disclosed, and all of those other pesky policy questions that relate to giving an individual some semblance of control over their personal lives.  Just don’t expect any help from the advertisers.  

When I first heard about the Associated Press (“AP”) accusing Shepard Fairey, the artist who created the ubiquitous red and blue Obama poster emblazened with the word “HOPE,” for copyright infringement, the first thing I thought of was “fair use,” most notably the concept called “transformative use.”  The AP alleged that Fairey infringed its photograph of Obama when he developed his poster.

Then I read the story shortly thereafter about Fairey filing a “declaratory judgment” lawsuit in New York asking a federal court in Manhattan to “declare” that he was not infringing the AP’s photograph.  Fairey doesn’t deny that he based the painting on the photograph, but claims that it was a fair use, which is a defense against copyright infringement. 

Although I haven’t had a chance to read the complaint yet, transformative use is the principal part of Fairey’s defense.  And it’s a meritorious one that will make for an interesting legal analysis—assuming the case gets that far.  So what is “transformative use” exactly?  The Supreme Court addressed this issue most recently in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. in 1994.  The Court described a transformative use as follows:

The enquiry here may be guided by . . . looking to whether the use is for criticism, or comment, or news reporting, and the like. The central purpose of this investigation is to see . . . whether the new work merely “supersede[s] the objects” of the original creation or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.”  Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. . . . and the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.  (emphasis added)

So the court will be focusing on to what extent Fairey’s painting adds something new to the original AP photograph, i.e., its “expression, meaning, or message” and thereby “transforms” it.  While a fair use analysis can be quite lengthy and complicated (and is very fact-specific), Fairey will certainly be able to make a credible argument that his colorful and abstract painting combined with the word “HOPE” alters and transforms the photograph’s meaning or message. 

In fact, it’s unclear to me exactly what message the original photograph would be communicating by itself.  Is Obama looking confident?  Reflective?  Poised?  Attentive?  Presidential?  It’s somewhat subjective and it will be interesting to see how the AP characterizes the picture’s message.  It’s really more a question of opinion, which works strongly in Fairey’s favor.  (And what does “hope” consist of anyway?)  So Fairey has a strong defense in this regard.  But one thing that I learned about litigation over the past 15 years or so is that it’s a very fluid and dynamic environment and can change rapidly.  Unforeseen things happen.

So in practical terms, what’s the lesson to be learned here?  Here’s the basic one:  Contacting a party or sending a cease and desist letter can be risky business sometimes.  In any type of infringement action—whether it’s patent, trademark, or copyright—notifying the other side that you believe it’s infringing on your intellectual property rights gives them the ability to go running into federal court and seek declaratory relief.  After all, you’ve just told them that a problem exists.

Your notification to them of possible infringement creates what’s called a “justiciable controversy” and can give them the ability and standing to go into court to seek a declaration that they’re not infringing, just as Fairey has done.  Of course, each federal circuit has its own rules as to what creates a justiciable controversy, so Massachusetts may use a different standard than another state—although the standards will usually not differ all that much.

So why is this a problem?  If you’re located in Boston, Massachusetts and the possible infringer is located in California, that party can now go into a federal court in California and file its action and get the “home field” advantage.  The court would very likely have jurisdiction over you.  So in addition to now having to hire counsel in California to defend yourself, you would also be forced to go there to give and take depositions and engage in other forms of “discovery.”  It can be very incovenient and expensive.  That’s the point.

This is why whenever somebody contacts me about either sending a cease and desist letter or is the recipient of one, it’s crucial to really sit down and strategize as to what your next move should be.  If litigation is a probable outcome and you’re dealing with a well-financed adversary, then it may be best to strike first and file an action in your home state where it would be most convenient for you.  (It’s been my experience, however, that many clients—especially those who have never been through the litigation process before—are somewhat leery of filing litigation first given its potential expense and duration.) 

Of course, these are general guidelines only and each situation will have its own facts and nuances that will dictate how best to proceed.  The practice of law doesn’t usually lend itself to easy answers, particularly where issues of infringement are concerned.  Many factors need to be taken into consideration.

So, Fairey did the smart thing.  Rather than wait and let the AP sue him—especially given the meritoriousness of his case—he struck first.  It will be interesting to see how things develop.  And it’s always possible that the case will settle before the court has a chance to rule.  In many instances, filing an action such as this is simply designed to show the other side that a person is serious about protecting his/her rights and that a compromise might be in everyone’s best interest.  But Fairey has a strong case.  We’ll have to wait and see.

Ask and ye shall receive.  My January 21st post discussed some of the potential legal issues that could arise by using Twitter.  Lo and behold, one just did.  And from a Congressman no less.  And not just any Congressman, but House Minority Leader John Boehner, who also happens to be the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee.

It seems that Boehner could have used some of that intelligence before he twittered his network about his secret trip to Baghdad.  As he arrived in Iraq, he sent the following “tweet” from his BlackBerry:  “Just landed in Baghdad. I believe it may be first time I’ve had bb service in Iraq.  11th trip here.”  Nothing like letting people know the time and place of where you happen to be.  It’s not like terrorists would be interes—whoops.  Nevermind.

If the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee can so easily and nonchalantly disclose secret information, you can only imagine what else will be coming down the pike in the near future.  While it’s unclear if any laws were broken in this instance, it nevertheless highlights the dangers of the informal nature of Twitter that I discussed in my earlier post.  Security lapses like this are just the beginning.

A common theme in my blog is that there’s just too much damned information out there about people and the various privacy concerns that it raises.  Of course, it’s hard to point the finger when people themselves foolishly contribute to the daily onslaught of information.  Facebook, like many other social networking sites, has become a clearinghouse for stupidity over the past few years and it seems like there’s no end in sight.

Take the case of Betsy Ramsdale, a teacher in Wisconisn.  It seems that Ramsdale couldn’t resist the urge of taking a picture of herself pointing a gun at the camera.  Kids, make sure you get your homework in on time!  (And no mistakes!) 

While it doesn’t appear that there was any malicious intent on her part, you have to wonder in this age of school shootings what she could have possibly been thinking.  She’s been a teacher for over a decade.  Ramsdale was placed on administrative leave while the school investigates.

This is just another cautionary Facebook tale.  There will be many others in the not-too-distant future.  If you must include potentially controversial or questionable pictures in your Facebook profile, it’s best to keep your profile private and only share it with friends you know and trust. 

Of course, there’s still no guarantee that even controversial photographs won’t be disseminated outside your network.  All it takes is one friend with a “you-gotta-see-this” mentality who sends it to somebody else and the next thing you know, it’s a news story.  So, when in doubt, just leave it out!

Does the flood of information ever end?  Do we have to know everything about everyone—in real time?  While location-tracking software is not new (well, not too new, anyway), Google’s expected move into this market only further reinforces Scott McNealy’s eerily prophetic saying, “You have zero privacy anyway.  Get over it.”  But now when you “get over it,” all of your friends will be able to see exactly where you were and when.

Google just launched its Latitude software that lets mobile phone users share their mapped location with their network of contacts—if they so choose.  This is nothing new, per se, given the existence of other companies such as Loopt, BrightKite, and Dopplr (for example), as well as most people’s familiarity with GPS, but Google’s entry into the marketplace provides further evidence that the technology is becoming even more widespread.  Maybe too much so.  But when the 800 pound gorilla talks, everyone listens.

According to the article, Google “hopes it will help people find each other while out and about and keep track of loved ones.”  Those are helpful and noble intentions.  What parents wouldn’t want to know where their teenagers are?  Or be able to direct a lost friend to your precise location?  But hope is a fickle thing.  And what Google hopes for and how Latitude will actually be used are two entirely different things.  We all know what the road to hell is paved with.  Lawyers make their living off of it (more on that in a moment).

Google requires that people expressly sign-up for the service and gives them the opportunity to tailor their preferences as to who they can share their location with, as well as the type of information shared.  While that gives the user some degree of control, it’s probably only a matter of time before a bored 16 year-old in hacks into the system and tracks people. 

Even if this doesn’t occur anytime soon, a disgruntled ex-husband may be able to track his ex-wife who forgot to take him out of her “network.”  While entire companies have sprung-up offering this type of GPS-based (and typically illegal) service, now a person can do so without any special equipment whatsoever.  Just a little bit of software and a forgetful spouse.  It goes without saying that stalking is a very real problem in this digital age and tools that used to be available only to law enforcement are becoming increasingly more common.

The fact that such software is even available is part of the larger privacy debate that will be with us for quite some time.  There are no easy answers in a society that never seems to have enough information about others.  Yet from a litigation perspective, few people may realize that all of this location data is stored by a provider for varying degrees of time and subject to subpoena and disclosure in the proper circumstances. 

Thus, in criminal or civil cases where a person’s time and location is an issue, it provides yet one more tool for lawyers to pursue when representing their clients.  Just ask those divorce attorneys in Massachusetts and elsewhere about getting all of that “E-Z Pass” toll information to discover cheating spouses.  Modern convenience has its costs.

So the age old Perry Mason question, “Where were you on February 4, 2009?” now becomes, “Why were you on the corner of 53rd and 7th Avenue at 3:12 p.m. on February 4, 2009?”  And while it may—may—help lawyers such as myself get to the truth faster in a courtroom, the human part of me (and yes, that still exists) finds it it to be unsettling.  So bad grammar aside, the question, ”Where you at?” now becomes, “Why you there?”  Ah technology . . . .

Actually, this post is really about those brave souls who decide to sue the IRS, one of the most powerful agencies there ever was.  While I was in law school (which seems like a long time ago), I took a tax law class to learn a little bit—and I do mean a little bit—about tax law and our complicated tax code.  Here’s what I took away from the class: (1) I didn’t want to be a tax lawyer; and (2) Don’t mess with the IRS.  Duh.

While this blog usually addresses various legal issues in technology-related matters, I also like to address those brave souls who go the distance in litigation—especially against a government agency.  That is no easy task.  As someone who often finds himself in court and has fought agencies in the past, I found this brief article to be interesting, although not very surprising.   

It highlights the 10 most litigated tax issues and the less-than-optimistic results.  A few of the areas addresssed in the article include gross income, summons enforcement, deductibility of trade/business expenses, family status issues, and penalties for failure to file.  While only a relative handful of cases in each area went all the way through to the end, the amount of time a taxpayer won fully in 8 of the areas ranged from 0% (you can’t get lower than that) to a whopping 10%.  The taxpayer prevailed in issues involving the joint liability of spouses and penalties involving frivolous litigation 24% to 31% of the time.  This is only slightly more encouraging.

The article only discusses those cases that are litigated from start to finish.  It makes no mention of the many cases that, in all likelihood, settled at some point along the way.  Still, I applaud those individuals who do take a stand.  It was an expensive one to be sure, but they did it.  Agencies of all types and sizes usually (but not always) have little to lose by going the distance.  Most people will either tire or be unable to keep paying their lawyers to fight.  And for that select group taxpayers who did prevail, I especially salute you.  Sometimes, you just gotta do what you think is right.  What could be more American than that?

It will only be a matter of time (if it hasn’t happened already), until someone gets his/her employer in trouble for using Twitter, the latest social networking and “microblogging” craze.  (Does it ever end?)  As if the well-known dangers of e-mailing haven’t been documented enough over the years—and have been a boon to litigators—Twitter may soon up the ante.

The issues are really no different than those that have already surfaced with e-mails.  Issues involving privacy, confidentiality, defamation, sexual harassment, discrimination, and copyright infringement (to name a few potential problem areas) have been well-litigated over the years.  By now, most employers hopefully have a formal e-mailing and internet usage policy in place for their employees to follow.  Instilling a healthy sense of fear never hurts.  

So how much harm can someone do with 140 characters or less on Twitter?   As a lawyer, I’ve learned never to underestimate the ability of clients to get themselves in all sorts of trouble.  As with texting, it’s only a matter of time before we all read about some clueless employee who gets him/herself fired and puts the employer in legal hot water.  And of course, it’s only a matter of time before lawyers start subpoening these types of electronic communications also.  Just because a message is only a few characters long doesn’t mean that it won’t be stored and saved—possibly forever.

But as noted by one commentator in the article linked-to above, Twitter messages are “quick sound bites and instantaneous” and “aren’t the most well-thought out.”  Someone who is upset, angry, or frustrated could easily use poor judgment and—in a few characters or less—wreak all sorts of havoc on his/her employer.  And once it ends up in the Twitter universe, it’s there for all to see . . . again and again and again.

Needless to say, an employer’s e-mail and internet usage policy should be specifically updated to account for services such as Twitter.  Employees must understand that even very short messages (designed for the inner ADD child who seems to live in all of us these days) can create liability.  Not that it will stop everyone, but it will stop some people.  And the ones it doesn’t stop?  Well, I’m just a “tweet” away!   

It may be due to a difficult job market.  Or perhaps it’s just a sign of the times.  According to one article, however, 83% of recruiters now search the internet for “digital dirt” in order to weed out prospective job candidates.  Thus, inappropriate Facebook photos, unbecoming MySpace profiles, vituperative message board postings, controversial political statements, publicly available criminal records, or any other questionable information are helping recruiters eliminate otherwise promising candidates from available positions.   

But it’s not just recruiters who are doing this.  More and more companies—both large and small—are either doing their own in-house searches or subcontracting them out to investigators who do them quickly and inexpensively.  Employers are all too aware that the costliest and most expensive decisions they make have to do with hiring the “right” people.  And the flood of information out there helps them in their decision-making process. 

And it’s perfectly legal.  If you voluntarily provide information and pictures for others to see, you can’t complain if it doesn’t always garner the results you want.  Of course, if a potential employer hacks into a system or uses a password without authorization to compile its profile on you, then you may have legal recourse (assuming that you ever find out about it).  You won’t have the job, but you’ll have the chance to bring an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit. 

So, as I mentioned in my last posting, be careful in general, but especially if you’re unemployed and looking for work (or will be facing that prospect shortly).  If you have any doubts about posting something, this in itself should tell you that perhaps it’s better to resist the urge.  Remember:  When in doubt, keep it out!