Disciplining Public Employees for Social Media Content
The article below discusses the First Amendment challenges that arise when taking action against public employees for the content they post on social media.
ABAJournal.com: Public Employees, Private Speech: 1st Amendment doesn’t always protect government workers
Below is an article I wrote a while back discussing how just one feature of a social media platform can have a significant impact on the law.
Broadcasting an Online Crime: Should it Be Criminal?
Here is an interesting article from CNN that discusses the possibility of enhanced penalties for broadcasting an online crime.
Social Media Policies for Law Enforcement
Here is another story about a police officer challenging the constitutionality of his department’s social media policy.
Apple’s 2016 fight against a court order commanding it to help the FBI unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino terrorists exemplifies how central the question of regulating government surveillance has become in American politics and law. But scholarly attempts to answer this question have suffered from a serious omission: scholars have ignored how government surveillance is checked by “surveillance intermediaries,” the companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook that dominate digital communications and data storage, and on whose cooperation government surveillance relies. This Article fills this gap in the scholarly literature, providing the first comprehensive analysis of how surveillance intermediaries constrain the surveillance executive. In so doing, it enhances our conceptual understanding of, and thus our ability to improve, the institutional design of government surveillance.
Surveillance intermediaries have the financial and ideological incentives to resist government requests for user data. Their techniques of resistance are: proceduralism and litigiousness that reject voluntary cooperation in favor of minimal compliance and aggressive litigation; technological unilateralism that designs products and services to make surveillance harder; and policy mobilization that rallies legislative and public opinion to limit surveillance. Surveillance intermediaries also enhance the “surveillance separation of powers”; they make the surveillance executive more subject to inter-branch constraints from Congress and the courts, and to intra-branch constraints from foreign-relations and economics agencies as well as the surveillance executive’s own surveillance-limiting components.
The normative implications of this descriptive account are important and cross-cutting. Surveillance intermediaries can both improve and worsen the “surveillance frontier”: the set of tradeoffs — between public safety, privacy, and economic growth — from which we choose surveillance policy. And while intermediaries enhance surveillance self-government when they mobilize public opinion and strengthen the surveillance separation of powers, they undermine it when their unilateral technological changes prevent the government from exercising its lawful surveillance authorities.
Tweeting a Spoliation Letter
Interesting story about a personal injury lawyer who successfully turned to Twitter to disseminate a Spoliation Letter to Uber.
Abovethelaw.com: When All Else Fails, Try Twitter