Law & Daily Life - The FindLaw Life, Family and Workplace Law Blog

Recently in Internet & Online Safety Category

Thanks to the advances in technology, it’s easy for a noncustodial parent and a child to keep in touch. With these technological advances, courts have begun awarding virtual visitation, particularly when parents live too far apart to make regular visitation practical. However, sometimes, a parent may not want their child’s other parent contacting the child at all. Courts are generally very reluctant to put such an order in place barring abuse, neglect, or some other extenuating circumstance.

Unless a court order authorizes such action, one parent can’t block another parent with custodial rights from contacting their own child. Otherwise, the blocked parent will have legal recourse through the family courts. Courts are typically agreeable to creating phone schedules or policies when there are disputes about excessive phone, video call, or text message contact that a noncustodial parent is making, or if one parent has been denied access.

The idea of internet privacy seems to take one of two forms: outrage that web browsers, email providers, and ISPs have nearly unfettered access to your information on the one hand, and on the other a shrug of the shoulders and a "you put your info on the internet, what did you expect?" The law has tried to find a balance between these two poles, weighing an individual's privacy interests against the public nature of the web, all while dealing with statutes that become antiquated in just a few years.

The latest attempt from legislators to strike such a balance is the Email Privacy Act, which, among other provisions, would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing private messages and documents stored online with communications and cloud computing companies like Google, Facebook, and Dropbox. The Act is making its third run through Congress in an attempt to become law, but will it fare any better this time than in the past?

You probably don't realize that you've been paying for social media all this time that you thought it was free. No, you haven't been charged on a monthly basis. Instead, if you post pictures, videos, or any other content, you've been selling social media sites limited licenses to use your photos, and content, pretty much anyway they see fit. That's right, your favorite funny face profile pic could be emblazoned on an IRL (in real life) billboard next to a caption to sell the latest in fast acting laxatives.

While it is highly unlikely that any large social media site would go that far, most of their terms of service would allow them to. Generally, by agreeing to the terms of most social media sites, including photo sharing sites, users grant sites the right to use their photos for any purpose, including advertising, and even for re-licensing. This all means you might not be able to sue if you find out one of your photos got used unbeknownst to you.

The California Court of Appeals recently rejected a challenge to one part of California's mandatory reporting laws for therapists. This case came about because the law in California was changed a few years ago to include a ban on the viewing of child pornography online.

Criminalizing the viewing of child pornography online seems perfectly rational. But what about in the context of reporting laws for therapists? According to the appeals court, mental health professional in California are now required to disclose to authorities when a client has viewed child pornography online.

As helpful a resource as the internet can be, it can also be a forum for online abuse. And perhaps nowhere on the internet is that abuse more prevalent than Twitter -- a social media app that, at best, allows one voice to project to millions of interested followers, and at worst allows minions and trolls to attack users.

Kurt Eichenwald, journalist and writer for Newsweek and Vanity Fair, was the victim of one such heinous attack -- a tweet embedded with "a multicolored strobe that was going at a speed that was designed to cause a seizure." The tweet had its intended effect: Eichenwald, who has written extensively about his epilepsy, suffered a serious seizure and was bedridden for 24 hours afterwards. Now Twitter has agreed to track down the troll who sent the tweet.

The freedom of speech is one of the most frequently cited constitutional rights online. Too frequently, it is cited to justify a person's right to say something that others find offensive or upsetting. However, while most understand that there actually are limits to free speech, just as many are shocked to learn the freedom of speech doesn't actually apply to any of the websites they are likely using.

For starters, the First Amendment only protects people from the government restricting their speech unreasonably. For instance, it does not protect people in real life, or on the internet, who incite violence; nor does it protect people making credible threats of violence.

Since websites are privately owned, websites are free to develop their own policies regarding what is or isn't allowed. You will generally have no legal recourse if a website chooses to censor you (although if it is done discriminatorily or in violation of a contract, you may).

The FCC is warning consumers to be on the lookout for telephone scam artists who impersonate government officials, such as law enforcement or other government representatives, demanding payment in the form of gift cards. Usually the impersonator will threaten that you or a family member will be arrested or face some other legal action unless a payment is made to them. The scammers then demand you purchase gift cards and provide them the redemption codes over the phone.

Although this scam has been around for some time, the FCC issued this warning amid concerns that scammers are employing the use of robo-calling to identify potential targets. Additionally, along with the consumer warning, the FCC held a town hall Q&A via twitter using the hashtag #RobocallChat.

Most of us have never violated Facebook's Community Standards. Then again, most of us are only posting photos of our children, vacation, or food. But as more businesses, charities, and media companies join the ranks of individual Facebook users, the limits of the site's policy on explicit posts are bound to be stretched. (And the most vitriolic presidential campaign in recent memory doesn't help matters.)

But rather than tightening its parameters on illegal or offensive content, Facebook announced last week it is relaxing its standards on explicit posts, so long as the post has some news or public interest value.

Living in the 21st century has its perks, including the wealth of information on the internet. But what happens to your digital accounts and online assets upon the end of life? To answer this question, you need to set up a digital estate plan.

Digital assets don't simply include your email accounts, social media profiles and blogs. They also include any websites you've published (and potentially monetized), and most importantly any e-commerce websites, or digital wallets, where you may actually have real dollars invested. Also, don't forget about your digital music, photo, and video libraries.

Below are a few tips to help you develop your digital estate plan.

We are constantly reminded -- and constantly reminding our children -- that what goes on the internet stays on the internet. While the internet has made everything from communication to shopping easier, it's also made it easier for our online mistakes to catch up with us and for online marketers to track us across the web. It may seem impossible to cut the cord at this point, rest assured that there are ways to delete yourself from the internet.

Here are a few legal tips to removing your personal information from the internet.