facebook

From “Covfefe Talk” to Covid 19 January 18, 2021

Posted by lborodkin in : Ethics , add a comment

It seems almost quaint to think in terms of the self-regulating nature of the attorney profession in light of the January 6, 2021 armed insurrection on the US Capitol, and the need to de-platform the President of the United States from the major social media products, Twitter and Facebook. However, these events exposed major fault lines in the way the general public view the operation of the First Amendment. Many claimed the right to be heard on private commercial web-based social media products. In such times, who would the public trust to explain the boundaries of such legal rights? Attorneys — one would hope.

In March 2019, I presented a Continuing Legal Education panel at the SxSW festival with Hanna Shafran on social media ethics for lawyers. Entitled “Covfefe Talk: Social Media Ethics Rules for 2019,” (audio replay can be found here), Hanna and I ran through a number of ethics scenarios presented by attorneys’ use of various forms of social media. In 2019, how attorneys should deal with online disinformation (TLDR for attorneys: don’t) seemed more like esoteric trivia rather than a potentially life-threatening epidemic.

Yet it has been repeatedly reported, with increasing levels of alarm, that the spread of online disinformation represents a chronic threat to the health and safety of the general public. For most of 2020, I was concerned about the spread of dangerous anti-scientific conspiracy theories with regard to Covid-19. But in early 2021, an even more shocking rupture in occurred. The failure of the three branches of the US government to operate as a check and balance on the spread of disinformation, in turn fueled the Capitol riots. The fact that Facebook and Twitter were able to do what Congress and the US Courts could not (stop the President of the United States from spouting dangerous conspiracy theories in real time) should cause every attorney in America to ask, “How did we get here?” and “How can we guard against the inevitable repetition of such events?”

The legal profession, in fact, has a number of ethics rules and procedures in place to monitor and discipline such lapses as would cause society to lose faith in the legal profession, as Hanna and I discussed at SxSw. It is the duty of the members of our profession to know and use these ethics rules in these times. The recent proceeding to disbar Rudy Guiliani will be watched closely. However, it is only a start. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. We should start by knowing the ethics rules, applying them scrupulously, and calling in appropriate circumstances for the application of those rules to deter abuse of the public trust.

An alarming number of highly-placed members of our government with extremely sophisticated and prestigious legal training nonetheless participated in an ideological assault on our very form of democracy by objecting to the election results. They know better. As lawyers, we cannot just look the other way. It is essential to the survival of our profession that we, as lawyers, call out their wrongdoing and live these principles ourselves. Otherwise, why should the public trust us?

This Week in Law 364 “Masks, Hats, & Hoodies” October 21, 2016

Posted by lborodkin in : Uncategorized , add a comment

Had a great time guesting on This Week in Law 364 with Denise Howell and Emory Roane. We talked about warrants for fingerprints (2 thumbs, 8 fingers down), facial recognition technology chilling effects, anti-surveillance, anti-drone camouflage fashion, the “Encryption Commission,” and much more.

We talked about the ethics and morality of smart cars and AI, which of course brought up the smart car scene in Hot Tub Time Machine 2:

On the note of dystopian surveillance fashion, Chanel showed in Paris a brilliant read-to-wear show for Spring 2017 with a futuristic surveillance, server farm theme. Check it out:

Finally, a small plug for our South By Southwest 2017 panel, Navigating the Youtube Safe Harbor with John Tehranian of One LLP and Kelly Klaus of Munger, Tolles and Olsen. See you in Austin, I hope.

Facebook’s IPO, “Privacy Correctness” and Charlie’s Writing September 27, 2012

Posted by lborodkin in : Uncategorized , add a comment

Charlie Cheever is stepping away from his day-to-day role at Quora.

Quora is and always will be a great product. It’s not easy to do a real-time, community-edited, advertising-free collection of the best sources on the Internet for questions.

One of the things I particularly like is Charlie’s style of writing. Quora has one of the most readable “About” pages on the web. I always attributed this to Charlie, because the word “great” showed up a lot in his answers.

I hope Charlie continues to contribute prolifically to Quora, and I look forward to whatever he decides to do next.

Also, here I am discussing Facebook on the day of its IPO with Kashmir Hill, Denise Howell, and Evan Brown on This Week of Law 162. “Privacy correctness” is an interesting idea. I’m generally impressed at how far we’ve come in at least considering the issue since the original Facebook privacy controversy in the Spring of 2010.

Radio Free Internet: Social Networks, Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment June 20, 2010

Posted by lborodkin in : Uncategorized , add a comment

While I was at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in San Jose, California, this week, Peter B. Collins asked me to talk on his Internet radio program about the Social Network User’s Bill of Rights we were hammering out at the conference.

To listen to my guest spot on the Peter B. Collins radio show, click below.

***Peter B. Collins Show Episode 142***

Peter asked great, insightful questions from outside the social media bubble.

1. What are reasonable expectations of privacy for Google search queries?

2. Are Yelp‘s review ranking algorithms a breach of an implied agreement with businesses?

3. Is Facebook developing a cottage industry in providing user data at $500 per subpoena?

4. Where are the courts on compelled disclosure of IP addresses?

5. Is Facebook heading for a tragedy of the commons when used for self-promotion?

6. Have social media policies eroded traditional constitutional protections in executing search warrants?

Peter’s toughest questions were about the intersection of constitutional law and social media Terms of Service, particularly Fourth Amendment issues.

Peter also asked for a recap of the seven principles in “We, the Users: Facebook User’s Bill of Rights” I wrote with Professor Jack Lerner of USC Law School for the San Francisco Chronicle.

Thanks, Peter!

Beautiful Pixel Art from the ACLU of Northern California’s dotrights.org project

In its Darkest Hour, Seeing the Good in Facebook May 18, 2010

Posted by lborodkin in : Uncategorized , 2comments

I’ve been skeptical of Facebook from the moment it tricked me into joining.

Lately, I’ve been surfing the wave of Schadenfreude at its recent fall from grace. I even co-wrote an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle that took some major digs at it.

However, I won’t be quitting. Something happened over the weekend that reminded me of the positive power of Facebook. A friend died. His name was David Lee.

Here is David, laughing and smiling just before he left for Costa Rica:

David Memorial from VidFu on Vimeo.

David was one of the best guys I have ever met. The video is from a business he was supposed to launch right after he came back from Costa Rica. He died in a car crash on that vacation.

It’s very much in character that Dave made this video. He told me, “There are a lot of people that talk about doing things, but I’m someone who does them.”

He was going to launch that business on time no matter what. I had told him it might be fun to get some comedy actress-writers I knew to be in the videos. But the actress-writers wanted to sit down and chat about it over coffee first. Their coffee date day was the day of the shoot. So he decided to star in it himself.

In business, David personified Guy Kawasaki’s principle of “Be a mensch.” His inner haggler sometimes battled with his innate generosity, but the generosity won out. Every long afternoon and late night we worked in K-town coffee shops, he picked up the check. When it was dark, he insisted on walking me to my car.

One night we had a heart-to-heart about why Koreans can be so dramatic. It’s like the Armenians, he said. Koreans endured a lot of suffering in their history.

I learned of David’s death from a Facebook event invitation. At first I mistook “Farewell to David Lee” for a going-away party. It dawned on me what might have happened. We were sending him off in farewell at the beach.

Like all of Dave’s friends, the friend who invited me was warm and outgoing. We had connected pretty quickly on Facebook.

When Dave’s friends started posting pictures and stories on his Facebook wall, I had some context to understand how loved he was. The range of emotions from his connections was comforting too. Everyone was dealing in their own way. It helped make it more real, going through it in real time, and not alone.

And this was possible because David and his friends had shared so much already. This is a case where in the moment you don’t care if the pictures are private or public. The point is to remember and share our life with David.

Now I get the half of the argument that is defending Facebook. If you post something you probably want to share it at some level. Even in the years I posted under an alias on an obscure Web community, I did.

As an Internet and media lawyer, I still think the Facebook privacy scam is evil. I think it sets a terrible example for business ethics. I still advocate for people to consider alternatives like Twitter, Flickr and Evite.

But as a user, I was really glad for Facebook this week. I’ll protest the privacy changes by abstaining on June 6, but I won’t quit.

If I had, I would have missed out on a little of David. I had too little time with him as it is.