How many online accounts do you have? Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Tumblr, YouTube, LinkedIn, blogs, online banking, email—the list goes on. Because of this, you may stick around for a lot longer than you had planned. Many new companies, like DataInherit, My Web Will and AssetLock are offering services to take care of your web presence after your death. Another option is to leave instructions for someone with your passwords, usernames and what you would like done with the accounts. However, some material may be too sensitive (private emails, financial accounts) for that approach; the wrong people might end up with information you don’t want revealed. It should also be kept separate from a will, which becomes public record—meaning your account passwords would become public record if they aren’t changed. However, different websites have different “terms of service” which may make is difficult for the average person to navigate, say John Romano and Evan Carroll, the authors of the book Your Digital Afterlife and founders of the site The Digital Beyond.

Facebook, for example, can either delete a deceased person’s page or memorialize it, meaning friends can write condolences and other things on the page, if shown a death certificate or news item reporting the death. To access a deceased person’s account, Gmail requires proof of death, an email you received from the person and proof “that you are the lawful representative of the deceased’s estate.” Twitter will terminate the account and/or provide the family with an archive of the deceased’s tweets.

Yahoo, on the other hand, which owns photo-sharing site Flickr, doesn’t allow accounts to be transferred. They will delete the account and all of its contents upon proof of death, so it’s important to back up any photos hosted on the site or request that an executor back up the photos before providing Yahoo with a death certificate.

It’s always important to think about how you’re being represented on the internet, but you don’t want to leave it up to the service providers to decide what happens to your online legacy.

Posted by Nancy on March 22, 2011 at 5:30pm.

The divorce rate in the United States is often cited as at least 50 percent, a daunting statistic for those considering marriage. However, the most recent census data puts the figure a bit lower, around 36 percent. Despite the decline, divorce and family law affects many adults and children in the U.S. Visitation rights are often a point of contention in divorce agreements, especially when the parent with primary custody seeks to move out-of-state. Ten years ago, most divorces ended in one parent getting sole custody, usually the mother. Today, an increasing amount of divorces result in joint custody of the children. In states with more restrictive rulings on this issue, if the move is good for the parent, it is considered good for the child(ren) as well, and the other parent is faced with the task of proving it would be detrimental to their relationship. In more lenient states, the custodial parent has to prove the move would not harm the relationship.

Recently, though, the use of internet video technology has changed the way some courts deal with visitation rights. Last year, Illinois made it legal for judges to enforce “virtual visitation,” where parents talk to their children using online video chat programs like Skype, iChat, or Google Voice. This option allows parents to keep in touch with children who have been moved far away and is one step beyond a mere voice telephone call. Utah was the first state to adopt similar legislation in 2004 when a father fought for guaranteed virtual visitation rights when his ex-wife wanted to move to Wisconsin. He now runs the website internetvisitation.org. In 2010, a New York judge ruled that a mother who wished to move with her children to Florida must allow their father to communicate with them via Skype. Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Wisconsin also have virtual visitation laws. Contact over the internet can also be used in situations where the parent hasn’t been granted in-person visitation, or if the parent is incarcerated. It is especially helpful when the parent with custody is uncooperative—as much as 77 percent of non-custodial fathers face “some form of visitation interference,” according to the Huffington Post.

However, some critics say virtual visitation will lead judges to allow more move-aways and allow farther distances than they would if video chatting were not an option. They also stress that internet communication should supplement in-person visitations, not replace it. While video chatting, emailing, and text messaging certainly makes it easier for far-away parents to keep in touch, is it enough? Has the internet improved your ability to talk to your kids, or is it simply more impersonal and quick?

Posted by Nancy on February 17, 2010 at 12:58pm.

Eavesdropping may sound like harmless fodder for Jane Austen novels and nosy neighbors. However, recording conversations can be considered an invasion of privacy—and not just conversations where the participants don’t know they’re being recorded. This can be an issue for journalists, law enforcement, politicians and even businesspeople.

In an age when anyone can easily record at a moment’s notice on a cell phone, digital camera or other mobile device, eavesdropping legislation has come under review. Federal law prohibits recording private wireless phone calls without consent. Thirty-eight states require only one-party consent during in-person conversations and phone calls; that is, if you are part of the conversation, you don’t have to tell the other person you’re recording it. California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington require the consent of everyone in the conversation to legally record.

However, the Illinois Eavesdropping Act is being challenged by the ACLU after felony charges were filed against people filming police officers making an arrest in a public place. Prosecutors said it violated the law because the police did not consent to being recorded. The Illinois law is one of the most extensive, applying even to conversations in a public area that anyone would be able to hear normally without the consent of all parties. Representatives for the police say the law protects officers from being afraid to do their job. The ACLU says it’s a double standard—police record people they pull over all the time, why shouldn’t citizens be able to record the encounter to ensure their rights are protected?

Hidden cameras with audio or the use of wiretapping (to record a conversation that you are not privy to), though, is generally illegal without a court order. Even taping under a one-party consent law will get you in trouble if it’s used to “further a criminal or tortious purpose,” such as blackmail. If you are taping a private conversation for journalistic purposes or otherwise, be sure to include the consent on the recording to cover your bases.

What do you think about the disparity in consent laws? Should police officers be subject to the same scrutiny as those they arrest?

Posted by Nancy on January 26, 2011 at 3:26pm.

2010 was a year of groundbreaking legislation and legal controversy, from Wikileaks to campaign contributions to BP’s oil spill. However, a few stood out more than others. My top three legal stories of the year and the ones to watch in 2011:

Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy

Although Democrats lost the majority in the House of Representatives, the lame-duck period was one of substantial activity. In a historic and across-the-aisle vote, the House and the Senate voted to repeal the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy, which essentially banned gays in the military. The measure came about in 1993 as a compromise between barring gays and lesbians outright and allowing them to serve openly. Sodomy has been grounds for discharge since 1778, and Congress enacted anti-gay military policies in the 1940s, 1960s and 1980s. Bills to repeal DADT were introduced to both the Senate in the House in 2005, 2007 and 2009. President Obama made it part of his campaign while running for office and promised repeatedly in the past two years to end the discriminatory policy. The Department of Defense released a report in November stating that 70 percent of military personnel felt that allowing gays to serve opening would have a mostly mixed and positive reaction or no consequence at all. The repeal passed in the House on December 15 and passed in the Senate on December 18, despite Senator John McCain’s efforts to filibuster, which he did successfully in September. Obama signed the bill into law on December 22, but the repeal will not go into effect immediately. First, Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen have to certify that they have reviewed the predicted effects in the Defense Department report and put an implementation policy into place, followed by a 60-day waiting period. Opponents have voiced concerns about gay and straight same-sex service members living in such close quarters and that open gays and lesbians will be a distraction on the battlefield. Over 13,000 troops have been discharged as a result of DADT since 1993, so it will be interesting to see who will step forward and become the first serving, openly gay member of the military.

Passage of Obama’s Healthcare Plan

Earlier in the year, Congress passed another historic bill: healthcare reform. This was one of the big issues in Obama’s presidential bid, so it was a crucial piece of legislation for his administration and the Democrats. Formally called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it’s arguably the biggest social reform since Medicare. It passed in the House and the Senate in late March without a single vote from Republicans in either chamber. The Republican Party opposed the plan because they say it’s unconstitutional to force people to purchase something, the bill encroached on states’ rights and it originally allowed for federal funding of abortion services. The plan will go into effect gradually over the next four years. Within the first year, children will be able to be covered on their parents’ plans until they are 26, insurance providers won’t be able to refuse children with pre-existing conditions or cancel policies when the recipient becomes ill. By 2014, electronic health records will be required and everyone will have to buy a healthcare plan or pay a penalty (over $2,000 per household by 2016). However, a federal judge in Virginia ruled the compulsory coverage part of the act unconstitutional on December 13. Attorney David Rivkin, representing a multi-state lawsuit comprised to 20 state Attorney Generals, argued that the Obama administration’s justification for this portion of the law could “allow regulation of any behavior with an economic impact.” The Justice Department, representing the administration, maintains that healthcare isn’t a commodity, so it isn’t unconstitutional. Automobile insurance is also required, but the logic is that buying a car isn’t. So, if you choose to buy a car, you must buy insurance as well. The state of Florida filed suit against the federal government a few days after the Virginia decision and was soon joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Utah. 32 Republican Senators have filed friend-of-the-court briefs (testimonies not solicited by the defense or prosecution), as did as Speaker of the House-elect John Boehner. The case will likely make its way to the Supreme Court; its defeat would be a huge blow to Obama.

Arizona Immigration Law

A controversial and oft-contested law that passed this year was Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration bill—the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Signed into law by the Governor Jan Brewer in April and set to go into effect July 29, the act makes it a misdemeanor for aliens to be without the necessary immigration documents and instructs police to act if they have reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally. U.S. Federal law already requires immigrants to carry proof of their legal status on their person—violation can result in a misdemeanor charge, a $100 fine and up to 30 days of jail time. The controversy with the Arizona law seems to be the provision that obligates law enforcement to ask about people’s immigration status; most other states discourage this sort of thing because they fear it will dissuade people from cooperating with police investigations and reporting crimes. Although illegal immigration is certainly a hot-button issue nationwide, it’s an even more pressing topic in Arizona, where the majority of Border Patrol arrests take place and there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants living. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a challenge against the act’s constitutionality, claiming it violates the supremacy of the federal government in trying to regulate immigration, and succeeded in getting a federal judge to pass a temporary injunction the day before it was to go into effect. The ACLU also had the same objection to the Arizona law. The group is one of fourteen organizations and ten people that filed a joint class-action lawsuit in May in opposition to the immigration law. After the temporary injunction in July, Arizona appealed the case and arguments were made to the Ninth Circuit court in November. An Arizona state senator predicted the case will go to the Supreme Court. The decision will affect not only the government’s stance on illegal immigration, but also states’ rights, which could open up a whole new set of issues for 2011.

What do you think were some of the most important legal issues of 2010?

Posted by Nancy on January 5, 2011 at 12:57pm.

It could be said that Wikileaks is an equal opportunity whistleblower. It has leaked documents not only against the United States government, but also the Somali government, Kenyan leaders, Swiss bank Julius Baer, the Church of Scientology, Sarah Palin, Iran, Peru, the British Ministry of Defense and climate scientists, to name a few. Its foundations are murky at best, and the source of its funding is equally mysterious. Australian Julian Assange has emerged as the spokesperson, apparent “editor-in-chief” and maybe-founder of Wikileaks.

As anyone following the news knows, Wikileaks has gained a massive amount of attention for leaking hundreds of thousands of documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan earlier this year and U.S. State Department diplomatic cables last month. Disclosure of the cables, which were private correspondence, poses a problem for the Obama Administration. While the leaks are certainly embarrassing, some argue that they put national security at risk. For example, the Afghan War Diary named many Afghan informants; revealing their identities obviously put them at risk of being killed, but Wikileaks refused to redact the names.

This issue hearkens back to 1971 when the Pentagon Papers were leaked and published in the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Johnson Administration got a temporary injunction to stop publication, claiming the documents were a threat to national security. In a matter of weeks, the Supreme Court disagreed and allowed the Pentagon Papers to continue to be published. Although the Wikileaks documents do not put the war in a favorable light, it can hardly be said they had the same impact on the war or the opinion of the people as the Pentagon Papers did regarding Vietnam.

Assange recently said that if the U.S. attempted to bring legal action against him, he’d release thousands more cables. It’s unclear if there is even a case against him. While whoever gave him the documents could be prosecuted, Assange and Wikileaks did not do anything illegal to obtain them. Journalists are generally protected in this kind of situation. If the journalist’s hands are clean, the courts will say to look at the type of information. It is truly private, then its publication would most likely violate privacy laws. If the information is of public concern, however, journalists are typically able to publish it because the courts don’t want journalists to have to ask “twenty questions” about how the information was obtained; instead, they should focus on the nature of the information and whether it should be made public. But then again, what are the requirements that determine who is a journalist? A degree? Their employer? Freelancers? Bloggers? Can Assange be considered a journalist?

Some critics, like Senator Joe Lieberman, are saying even the New York Times should be prosecuted for republishing the Wikileaks cables. Columbia University students were told that discussing Wikileaks on social media like Facebook or Twitter could jeopardize their chances of getting State Department jobs. PayPal stopped processing donations to Wikileaks, and Amazon.com pulled the use of their servers.

Is Wikileaks an essential watchdog organization? Did they have the right to publish those documents? Many, like Salon.com’s Dan Gillmor say traditional journalists should defend Wikileaks, because an attack on the site is an attack on free speech. However, though many leaks have exposed corruption, they also have shown a complete disregard for the safety of those involved: besides revealing Afghan informants names, they published a full list of the names of the far-right British National Party complete with home addresses. When a hacker got into Sarah Palin’s email, instead of publishing the relevant, work-related content, Wikileaks also published the email addresses of Palin’s friends and family. Is that information of public concern? Probably not.

Most recently, Assange was arrested in London on sexual assault charges and faces extradition to Sweden. His lawyer says the U.S. is also seeking to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act. Assange was granted bail this morning (reportedly paid for by several people including controversial filmmaker Michael Moore) but will remain in jail for now as Sweden is appealing the bail decision.

What do you think?

Posted by Nancy on December 17, 2010 at 2:06pm.

The infamous shut-down of Napster in 2001 was not the end of illegal file sharing. Despite the lawsuits brought (and won) against the company, new peer-to-peer programs such as Limewire and Acquisition popped up. A few weeks ago, however, the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) got the court to pass an injunction ordering Limewire to immediately disable its software that allows for searching, downloading and trading. The injunction said that Limewire’s software knowingly “allows for [copyright] infringement on a massive scale.”

The RIAA also managed the suit against Napster. This time, the plaintiffs represented big-time record companies like Sony Music, Motown Records, Arista Records, Capitol Records, Interscope Records and Warner Bros. Records, among others. This decision has been four years in the making—the RIAA filed in 2006—and isn’t over yet. New York Federal District Judge Kimba M. Wood also held that the file sharing company is liable for damages for violating copyright law in billions of illegal downloads. Federal law allows for up to $150,000 in damages per copyrighted song, so the amount could potentially be enormous.

Since the late October injunction, a pirated version of Limewire—that still allowed file sharing— came out, and the RIAA accused Limewire of violating the injunction. However, this version of the software appears to be distributed by someone else, and Limewire claims it has no affiliation with “Meta Pirate,” the individual publishing the software. The RIAA asked the court to appoint a receiver, who would investigate and make sure Limewire was complying with the injunction.

Limewire users have still been able to work software that has already been downloaded and installed. PCMag.com has also pointed out that by shutting down Limewire, downloaders will probably just move to new software; the record labels missed their chance at making Limewire a paying community. Others have said that the loss to record companies is negligible and should even be considered free advertising since users share music.

Can Limewire users be held liable for damages as well? Only a handful of people have been prosecuted and ordered to pay tens of thousands in damages—one mother was ordered to pay over $1 million for downloading 24 songs—so it’s unclear whether the RIAA plans to go after individual users. Your best bet is to simply pay for your music by downloading from iTunes, Rhapsody or listening to music on Pandora.

Do you use file sharing software? Do you think it should be illegal?

Posted by Nancy on November 29, 2010 at 3:13pm.

A few weeks ago, NPR contributor Juan Williams was fired, ostensibly for making controversial statements on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor about Muslims. Mixed reactions followed, and while NPR president Vivian Schiller apologized—but not for Williams’ termination—Williams was not offered his job back. Luckily for him, he had a fallback job at Fox News. Most people, though, probably aren’t that lucky. If you lose your job, when is it considered wrongful termination?

In a broader sense, “wrongful termination” can mean a firing that violates the terms of your contract with your employer. Unfortunately for the employee, most places follow “at will” employment, which means someone can be fired for any reason, at the employer’s discretion. There are, however, a few exceptions. The first is discrimination; you can’t be fired because of race, gender, religion or age. Sexual orientation is protected in some states, but not all. The second is retaliation, or being fired for because you filed a claim of discrimination. Another exception is for contractual employees, that is, employees whose contracts state limited, specific reasons that they can be fired. However, such fixed terms are uncommon today. You also can’t be fired for refusing to do something illegal. You may also have a claim if your employer didn’t follow the guidelines or correct procedure for termination.

If any of these are the case, a lawyer should be contacted—there are often deadlines and specific procedures set out by employment laws that you will need help navigating through.

But what about Williams? His case doesn’t fall neatly into any of those categories. Can you really be fired for exercising your right to free speech? Absolutely. Most employers have guidelines about this stated in company policy, especially governmental institutions like the CIA. Schiller said the decision to fire Williams was made over an ethics violation, not because he made the statements on a right-leaning news program (when NPR is often accused of being left-leaning). NPR’s employee guidelines do prohibit speaking “where the appearance might put into question NPR’s impartiality” and maintain that coverage should be unbiased, in that employees must “separate [their] personal opinions from the subjects we are covering.” As articles on the Washington Post’s blog and Slate have pointed out, NPR warned Williams more than once that his comments on Fox repeatedly violated the standards for NPR news analysts. Williams, however, said he was “fired for telling the truth,” and O’Reilly called for the removal of public funding to NPR, although he’s hardly the first to suggest it.

Have you ever been wrongfully terminated? Do you think Williams was?

Posted by Nancy on November 15, 2010 at 3:37pm.

Foreclosure is certainly a word most homeowners don’t want to hear, especially since the financial crisis of 2008; unemployment rose and home values plummeted. But what happens when you’re actually faced with it?

First, foreclosure is what happens when a borrower doesn’t keep up on their mortgage payments. Your lender (usually a bank) will contact you if you miss a payment. What happens after that varies by state, but in general, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, your lender will send a Notice of Acceleration, which says you have 30 days to pay the outstanding amount on your mortgage. After that, the bank will most likely begin foreclosure proceedings and you will also have to pay all attorney fees.

The next step is public sale of the property, and you will be notified of the sale date, which is the foreclosure date. Up until the date of sale, you can still pay the owed amount (including legal fees) or make some sort of arrangement with the bank. You still have one more chance after the sale, though—the redemption period. The time limit for this and procedures is different throughout the country, typically between ninety days and one year.

One option to avoid foreclosure is refinancing your mortgage with your lender. Many banks have refinance options and are willing to work with you so that you don’t default on your payments. That being said, make sure to respond to notices from your lender, because not opening your mail won’t hold up as an excuse in court. In many states, you can still pay the full amount or refinance up until the foreclosure and during the redemption period.

Another option is called “short sales,” which allow you to sell your devalued home for less than you owe. However, some lenders don’t allow this or have a complicated process for it to prevent fraud (like a homeowner appearing to be in financial straits when they aren’t, or selling it to a relative who then sells it back, which is illegal). A short sale will lower your credit rating, but not for as long as would a foreclosure.

There are legitimate companies out there who will help you, but the fees are often equal to two or three months’ worth of mortgage payments. The Department of Housing and Urban Development offers free housing counselors who can assist you. Watch out for foreclosure scams as well—never sign a document that allows them to act on your behalf, because you might be signing over the title to your home.

Finally, read carefully over any legal documents pertaining to your foreclosure. Several big-name banks (including Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase) have put a freeze on mortgage foreclosures this month because of administrative errors; so-called “robo-signers” have approved foreclosures without reading them or making sure all the information was correct or present. Always ask the bank for documentation for your loan, especially since loans are often sold and change hands several times.  If you can afford it, hire a lawyer to make sure everything is done right and to explore all of your options.

Posted by Nancy on October 29, 2010 at 5:34pm.

As midterm elections loom, our TVs are bombarded with mudslinging political campaign spots. Ads recently taking up a lot of airtime in Missouri for example include those for and against Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan, who are running for the U.S. Senate. Both accuse the other of being a Washington bigwig and not having “Missouri values.” But how much of candidates’ claims about their opponents is true? Can they be sued for libel?

Last Saturday on Weekend Edition, a show on NPR, the host spoke to Bill Adair. Adair, editor of the nonpartisan web site PolitiFact, assessed the amount of truth in various campaign ads. Despite the fact that some were given the rating of “pants on fire,” the ads still run on television.

It’s very difficult for public figures, especially politicians, to sue for libel. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that to win such a libel case, the politician would have to prove that the defendant knew that whatever they said was false—not an easy argument to make. So, “pants on fire” campaign claims are all too common. Does this make for fair elections?

Not all of the TV and radio spots are sponsored by the candidates themselves. Interest groups, lobbying groups, and others also pay to run ads in their interest. The largest teachers’ union in the country, the National Education Association, spent $15 million this campaign season on advertising for candidates it supports. A controversial Supreme Court ruling in January overturned the ban on corporate campaign spending, so now private corporations and labor unions can “spend freely” on campaigns for or against candidates to try and influence elections.

In the middle of this controversy is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a conservative-leaning lobbying group that represents business interests. The left-leaning Center for American Progress issued a report this month that accuses the chamber of using foreign funds from countries like India, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates to pay for the advocacy or opposition of candidates. The chamber isn’t required to reveal its donors and is denying the charges, so for now this is only an accusation. The chamber is set to run over 8,000 political ads and spend over $75 million by November, making it one of the election’s biggest advertisers. If the Center for American Progress is right, foreign interests could be influencing the elections in a big way.

Is there a way to ensure that political ads are telling the truth, or are candidates, as well as their advocates and adversaries, protected by the First Amendment and allowed to say what they want? Should corporations and lobby groups be allowed to directly contribute to political campaigns? How do you think the decision to allow this will change candidates’ campaigns?

Posted by Nancy on October 19, 2010 at 11:53pm.

Few students here at the University of Missouri are aware that texting while driving is actually illegal. Speeding, driving while intoxicated, sure, but many don’t see texting as an issue. “It doesn’t distract me that much. I know where the buttons are, so I don’t really have to look,” said a sophomore education major.

In effect since August of 2009, Missouri law prohibits drivers 21 and younger from sending or reading text messages while driving—that’s 80% of Mizzou undergraduates. 37 other states have also passed some sort of anti-texting law.

Several academic studies and one at Car and Driver have suggested that texting impairs your driving just as much, if not more, as drinking does. However, is “distracted driving” limited to just texting? What about talking on the phone, eating, even just talking to other people in the car?

Just as the Bluetooth allows for hands-free phone calls, new cell phones like the HTC Evo have an application for voice texting. Is this a safe alternative?

Cell phones played a part in over 1,780 car accidents last year in Missouri alone, but few tickets have been issued as a result of the texting ban: only 13 citations in its first five months.

“I feel bad—I know there’s a law,” said one junior finance major, “but I just do it anyway since I don’t think it’s that easy to enforce.”

The Missouri State Highway patrol announced a campaign last week to “complement” and promote the law, but the effort consists of stickers of the letters “DWT” contained by a red circle with a strike through the acronym for “driving while texting.”

Right now, the penalty for DWT is a $200 fine and two points added to your driver’s license, but state legislators have proposed upping the punishment and applying it to drivers of all ages. Some lawmakers were not supportive of the bill, though, and thought it went too far. State House Representative Jeff Roorda pointed out that it would be difficult for police officers to determine whether people were actually texting, or simply making a phone call or using a GPS device, both of which are legal.

The bill passed in the Missouri State Senate but didn’t pass the State House of Representatives in May. It was, instead, referred to the Public Safety Committee but currently has no hearings scheduled for it to be discussed further.

“Texting while driving is so dangerous. I’m a bad enough driver as it is,” said a sophomore journalism major. “The last thing I need is another distraction. No text is so important that it’s worth your life.”

Is this law, in fact, unenforceable? Even now, opponents say officers can’t tell if the person texting while driving is over 21 or not. Do you text while driving? Do you think it’s dangerous?

Posted by Nancy on October 6, 2010 at 12:44pm.