Techdirt has an interesting answer: shut up. If you're the kind of employer who cares about the answer, you're the wrong kind of company to use social media. The law is not clear. But that is, at least.
They say it better than me, but I have a brief due today.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Commerce in the Online World
Did you know that online commerce will surpass $2 billion this year? No, not "e-commerce," like using your credit card to buy something. Online commerce as in goods and services produced and provided to our virtual selves: "money" in games. Two Billion Dollars. Spent on Second Life coins, level ups, in-game weapons and tools, even online property.
More food for thought for the new world: Online and Offline Reputation
What is the value of your online reputation? Can you protect it? As with my previous post, I'm mulling over the new-world questions that come with our online universe. Anyway, in the absence of having something ready to write down, let me say that this is an interesting introduction to the regulation of online reputations.
Interesting article on Search Neutrality
This is an interesting article on Search Neutrality written by a professor of mine, Geoff Manne. I've seen a few pieces on the subject. As we move forward, as a society and as a legal system, we will continue to face more and more questions about the proper methods of regulating (or not) search engines, social networks, etc.
I believe his article was written in counterpoint to this one at Eric Goldman's Technology and Marketing Law Blog.
I believe his article was written in counterpoint to this one at Eric Goldman's Technology and Marketing Law Blog.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Alaska challenges galore: how to spell Murkowski
The Alaska Daily News reports.
I was hardly alone in predicting this might happen, but I'll say it anyway: I saw this coming.
Apparently, the Miller team is challenging every mis-spelled "Murkowski." On Martin Kaste's report for NPR last night, he mentioned that some of the challenges boiled down to difficult-to-read cursive handwriting. (New way to motive kids to work on handwriting: "You're practicing handwriting to save democracy!")
As a legal strategy, it makes sense: If the Miller team is going to make a legal challenge to the election in court, they need to make as many challenges as possible now. Once in the courtroom, they won't be able to add more challenges. So at this point, they're doing what they need to be doing.
I'm also curious, from a legal perspective, whether there is a Bush v. Gore type issue with equal protection in how votes are counted. Voters were told (or thought they were told) that some mis-spellings, and maybe even gross deviations from the proper spelling would be tolerated. And now it's looking like the counting methods may become far more strict. I wonder if there's a voter lawsuit in the mix? Look for it: the Murkowski camp will have, as a party to their suit, a voter who wrote "Lisa M" or "Lisa Merkowsky" on the ballot, suing against disenfranchisement. I mean, clearly they will have testimony from people saying: 1. I was told that Lisa M or "something close" would work; 2. I wrote "Lisa M" because I intended to vote for Lisa M, and 3. everyone else who wrote that intended to vote for her. But I think they will find voters to join the suit. Anyway, more to come, I'm sure.
I was hardly alone in predicting this might happen, but I'll say it anyway: I saw this coming.
Apparently, the Miller team is challenging every mis-spelled "Murkowski." On Martin Kaste's report for NPR last night, he mentioned that some of the challenges boiled down to difficult-to-read cursive handwriting. (New way to motive kids to work on handwriting: "You're practicing handwriting to save democracy!")
As a legal strategy, it makes sense: If the Miller team is going to make a legal challenge to the election in court, they need to make as many challenges as possible now. Once in the courtroom, they won't be able to add more challenges. So at this point, they're doing what they need to be doing.
I'm also curious, from a legal perspective, whether there is a Bush v. Gore type issue with equal protection in how votes are counted. Voters were told (or thought they were told) that some mis-spellings, and maybe even gross deviations from the proper spelling would be tolerated. And now it's looking like the counting methods may become far more strict. I wonder if there's a voter lawsuit in the mix? Look for it: the Murkowski camp will have, as a party to their suit, a voter who wrote "Lisa M" or "Lisa Merkowsky" on the ballot, suing against disenfranchisement. I mean, clearly they will have testimony from people saying: 1. I was told that Lisa M or "something close" would work; 2. I wrote "Lisa M" because I intended to vote for Lisa M, and 3. everyone else who wrote that intended to vote for her. But I think they will find voters to join the suit. Anyway, more to come, I'm sure.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)