Showing posts with label internet law expert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet law expert. Show all posts

11/06/2021

Content removal by social media companies. Is content removal influenced...


Content removal by social media companies

Solicitor Yair Cohen explains how content removal discrimination impacts valuable internet users

Russian data protection watchdog, Roskomnadzor, has claimed that despite repeated requests to delete harmful content, social media platforms, and particularly Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google are repeatedly refusing to comply. 

In the case of Twitter, for example, since 2015, more than 6,000 prohibited materials have not been removed by the site. 

After the implementation of measures to slow down the traffic of the social network, 490 materials remain unsalted. The average time to comply with the requirements for the removal of prohibited materials has been reduced from 129 to 8 days. 

 Eleven cases of censorship of Russian media and information resources have been identified, including Russia Today, Sputnik, RIA Novosti, as well as a number of accounts of Russian users and projects ("Leaders of Russia," Sputnik V vaccine account). Personal data processing (DD) is not localized. Ten protocols on administrative offences have been drawn up. To date, the courts have considered all protocols, the total amount of fines for not removing prohibited information is 27.9 million rubles. For non-compliance with the requirements of Russian data localization legislation - 4 million rubles.

30/11/2020

Fine for Facebook for sharing friends info by South Korea data protection regulator

Facebook fined in South Korea for sharing user data without consent after it also turned in false or incomplete documents during the investigation. 
Yair Cohen, social media solicitor explains that when Facebook users logged into other third-party apps using their Facebook accounts, Facebook shared not only their information with the third-party apps but also information of their Facebook friends, who of course, had no idea that their information was shared, let alone were in a position to consent to the practice. 
The information was then used to tailor content and advertising to the unsuspected friends.

28/02/2020

Solicitor Yair Cohen explains how to stop online trolling



Online harassment laws need to change to help victims of online harassment get their lives back. 


Solicitors Yair Cohen's strategy will, for once and for all, bring an end to online trolling and harassment.


 The reality is that eventually there will be laws enacted to protect victims of online harassment from anonymous trolls. How long would we need to wait for this to happen, however, is unclear. 


Online harassment of individuals is as common now a days as using the internet. It has nearly become an acceptable way of behaving and a norm which we, as a society have been willing to accept.

As it happened, once certain members of Parliament started to become to subject of online harassment, together with a number of high profile cases of harassment of celebrity , things have started to change. Victims of defamation on the internet and of internet blackmail  have stated to speak out.

At the same time there is some recognition now that harassment on the internet is no different to the old fashion harassment that people used to suffer 20 or 30 years ago.

Anonymity on the internet plays a major factor in the increase of online harassment cases. Discovering the identity of online trolls plays a key part in combating this terrible phenomena which is called online trolling.

For more information and support in helping you get rid of your online trolls get in touch on 0207 183 4123 or visit our website https://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk/contact-the-internet-law-centre

22/02/2019

Why your child is not safe on YouTube

Is Google responsible for YouTube users leaving abusing comments on children’s videos?

Google would like us all to believe that the use of YouTube by paedophiles is an unfortunate event which it has no control over and which it did not cause. The truth, however, very different.
For a start, not only that Google has known about this practice for some time, I would go as far as to suggest that by the way Google has conducted itself, it has willingly placed kids at substantial risks.
To fully understand Google's culpability, we need to understand Google's age restrictions policies in relation to YouTube and in relation to Google's mobile phone operating system Android, which accounts to about 80% of the of the new mobile phone sales and which is where most YouTube videos are being watched. So, starting with YouTube age restriction policy, and this is this is very important, Google’s officially says that Read more about child safety online

25/01/2019

Is online abuse a criminal offence

Is online abuse a criminal offence in the UK Yair Cohen,

 UK social media lawyer, speaks to Jason Mohammad on BBC Wales: 

It appears you are in the public eye. Many people think it's perfectly fine to sit behind a smartphone or computer and send abuse. Well, the TV presenter [Katie Price] has simply had enough. She's calling on the UK government to adopt Harvey's Law, named after her son, Harvey Price, to make online abuse a specific criminal offense, creating a register of offenders. . Do you think online abuse should be made a criminal offense? And maybe you are put off from going online because of the abuse you could experience. I know a lot of people in the public eye who get it every single day.
 Jason Mohammad: Let's talk to Yair Cohen who's a social media lawyer from the Internet Law Center. Yair, good morning to you. Good to have you. How are you?
Yair Cohen: Hey, good morning. Excellent, excellent. Jason Mohammad: How does it stand at the moment?

Is there anybody stopping somebody sitting in their bedroom sending a lot of hateful abuse to somebody within the public eye? 

Yair Cohen: The law should be stopping them. We have got laws in place, the same laws that apply to offline activities also apply to online activities. I think that, over the years, people have been made to think that they are two different societies.
There is the online society and there's the offline society, whereas the online society is completely unregulated. You can do whatever you want. There are no consequences for your actions, whilst the offline society, you're pretty much heavily regulated.
 There is the police, there is the court, there is everything else. And what we are starting to see now is a bit of a shift in understanding that there aren't two societies.
People are the same people, and what is happening online affects that individual, and their families, and the children, and the parents offline as well.

So the laws are pretty much the same laws. We're talking about particularly the law of harassment. When one is being harassed online, the harassment is an ongoing thing. It is there 24/7. It is there all the time for everyone to see. It doesn't go away. It doesn't stop when you switch the computer off. So we will probably be looking at an offense of harassment being committed by people who just shout abuse at other people online.
 
Jason Mohammad: So, Yair, when you look at some of the newspapers, you see very often there are articles whereby members of Parliament, politicians, television presenters, sports stars are being abused on a daily basis. Therefore, it begs the question whether social media companies should be taking much more responsibility. Yair Cohen: The approach by government, especially during the Tony Blair era when the internet just started to become more widely available, was that free speech was king, which means the Crown Prosecution Service was giving instructions to the police not to even investigate offenses that are committed online that involve abuse and harassment. It was considered as something which might interfere with free speech, and it wasn't until very recently where members of Parliament started to receive abuse themselves, and experience the strength of the harassment, that suddenly there's been a shift in mindset, and police is starting now to investigate because they are told that they have to do that. Jason Mohammad:

You switched on your phone in the morning, and you were subject to some sort of abuse, what would you do? The first thing you'd have to do surely is go to the police?

Yair Cohen: It depends. It depends on the strength, it depends on the severity of it, but most people will go to the police. Unfortunately, the police is still not up to dealing with those sort of things, so the police will say, "Well, there's nothing we can do about it. It's happening online. Just go home," and it happens time and time again, and we sometimes have to send people four, five, six times back to the police station and say, "No, no, no. You've got to tell them that they've got to investigate." Yair Cohen: The alternative is to take out a civil injunction, because remember harassment is both a civil wrongdoing and a criminal wrongdoing. So even if police isn't doing anything, the individual can either take a private prosecution, so they themselves can go to the magistrate courts and start a case against their abuser, or they can go to a civil court and obtain a civil injunction, which, of course, is very expensive. Jason Mohammad: Yair, good to talk to you. Thank you very much indeed. That is Yair Cohen speaking to us

02/07/2017

Yair Cohen BBC interview on new investigatory powers in the UK



Last year Security Services in the United States told Yahoo
it had to create and install a backdoor system to its email operations system
so that it will be made easier for the state to spy on users’ data when spying becomes a necessity. 
Both the US government and Yahoo were criticised at the time but a
year on, the UK government is about to pass a law which will require all telecommunication to build into any service they develop, a backdoor entry for the government.  
This sounds bad but it might, after all, not be such a bad idea because at least, when data spying is being governed by law, this allows to create checks and balances on a far more transparent basis than currently exists.


11/07/2016

Legal advice Facebook

Facebook legal advice - London social media lawyers

Why is it that only lawyers can get in touch with Facbeook?


Have you recently tried to engage with Facebook, ask a question, speak to anyone in the company, leave a message or communicate in any way? If you have, then I share your pain. Facebook is faceless and this is now official. The company that says it champions personal interaction has given each of its users a unique personal identification number. Facebook has also removed telephone and email contact information for its team from the internet so that you don't bother its employees with all sorts of nonsense, including complaints about your personal safety, breach of your privacy or defamation of your character.
Don't worry though. If they need to get in touch with you because you have allegedly breached Facebook's advertising rules, they will do so. After all Facebook has got your email address and mobile telephone number handy.



As we we all post millions of  images, videos and other personal data onto Facebook each day, most of us give  little thought to what would happen if one day we, our children, family or friends will want to have all or some of this data permanently removed from the internet. Who would they contact? Who will they be able to speak to? Would they ever be able to grab the attention of Facebook's employees? And what if Facebook do nothing about their request, would they be able to complain to anyone?
For now at least, it seems the only way you can get noticed by Facebook is through internet and social media lawyers, who happened to have good contact details for the organisation. And we are here to help. I much rather though Facebook had given out an email address or had provided a live chat facility so that the poor and vulnerable in our society are able to communicate with the company too....

30/10/2015

Net neutrality vote in the European Parliament. What does it really mean?

Net neutrality abolished. Fast lane or slow lane and what the fuss is all about


The news about the abolition of net neutrality by the European Parliament earlier this week has gone almost unnoticed and has hardly been reported in the British media. Since the inception of the internet the concept of net neutrality meant that all data is equal in the eyes of the internet service providers (ISPs), which means that all content has to be streamed to our computers and mobile devices in equal speed and quality. It seems however from now own some data will be more equal than other, with priory of delivery given to the highest bidders. This could means that for the first time, ISPs will be able to decide what Apps or content will be made easily accessible to us,at the expense of other data.

So what exactly net neutrality is?

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites. Currently, in most EU countries, mobile telephone and website operators can prioritise the delivery of certain data to their customers. The recent vote in the European Parliament is likely to make this practice more widespread, effectively creating so called Internet “fast lanes” and “slow lanes".


Fast lane slow lane

For example, Twitter might reach an agreement with O2 to allow mobile telephone users free access to Twitter, outside of their data allowance, in return for payment or more likely a share of the advertising revenue. This could prejudice, for example, Facebook or smaller social media providers, as their users’ access to their content will cost them money or not form part of their data allowance.  Another pertinent example may be telecommunication companies who might prioritise delivery of Netflix content, whilst at the same time slowing down delivery of content from its biggest rival, Amazon Prime. Users of Amazon Prime will find themselves at a distinct disadvantage which will be seen in the form of slower streaming of videos.

Telecommunication companies will often argue that specialised services running over fast lanes are needed in order to encourage innovation in the EU. However, freedom of speech campaigners will assert that telecommunication companies should not be able to decide what content internet users can see, or be able to reduce the viewing quality of certain content. One of their principal concerns is that telecommunication companies will be able to sensor information by slowing down access to it, or even by making it completely undeliverable.

Net neutrality fast lane and slow lane

Net Neutrality has always been a fallacy 

Prioritising fast delivery of online content in favour of the higher bidder is a business model already used by companies such as Google. An example of this is via its “pay per click” programme, where companies pay Google “rent” for the privilege of having links to their website appearing on the first page of the search results. This seems to be the way the delivery of internet content has and continues to evolve. One can argue that what freedom of speech campaigners tried and failed to do in last week’s vote, is to return the internet back to its early “hippy” days where all content was free and randomly delivered to users. Therefore, with their vote against the amendments to net neutrality, MEPs have made it clear that things have now moved on.
Listened to the full interview on Net neutrality fast lane and slow lane


29/01/2014

Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Media Websites

Social media lawCorporate social responsibility might no longer be a term mainly associated with saving the rain forest or with giving a fair deal to coffee farmers. This well chewed term could soon have a different meaning altogether.
If you want,  social media users are similar to coffee farmers. But only in the sense that they work hard for very little. Social media users work for their masters by producing tones of internet content and false relationships and by perform acts of indiscretion and public exposure. Social media sites will be made redundant without hard working users in the same way that coffee chains will struggle to survive without an army of coffee farmers. In fact, social media users are more like cyber-slaves than coffee farmers. Read the full article: Social Media Websites and Corporate Social Responsibility
By: Yair Cohen
Social Media lawyer

30/08/2012

Internet Law Experts Solicitors!!!

Internet Law Experts Solicitors Ltd, is fully regulated by the Solicitor Regulation Authority to provide dedicated advice  to help you successfully deal with your online reputation management. Matters such as internet defamation, domain name disputes, internet positioning and PR, social networking strategies and internet reputation crisis management.

http://www.internetlawcentre.co.uk





14/08/2012

What Should I Do If I Find My Business Listed On A Complaints Site?

What should you do if you find your business listed on a complaints site?

It’s what you should have already done that counts! Legal recourse is painstaking and expensive. Many of the sites are located in Eastern Europe.

Even if you succeed in shutting one site down, there’s no guarantee another won’t pop up in its place. It’s faster and more effective to be proactive.

So how do I do that? Here are the top 8 suggestions:
  • Buy five to 10 domain names that are similar to the one your company owns. If you’re a dot-com, get the dot-net and dot-org if you can.
  • Then get a few.... Read More

02/07/2012

9 Steps To Avoid Internet Defamation By Employees And Former Business Partners




Interenet defamation by employees and by business partners
Internet Defamation By Employees
How to describe that first shocking moment when you discover that the reputation of your business is being tarnished all over the internet? There’s really nothing else like it, and it is followed by sleepless nights and constant worry. For some business people whose reputation is attacked online, things will never be the same again.

Just imagine: As you lie awake wishing the problem would go away, instead, it is spreading throughout the internet. Within weeks, sometimes even days, there is more defamatory material every time you look. The complaints are anonymous, and they are in too many places for you to respond to, if the sites even allow for a response at all.

Learn more about defamation of business and the internet at the Internet Law Centre

The lightning speed of information flowing through the internet, the speed that seems so miraculous when you are seeking information, is now working against you. Soon, matters are completely out of your control.

Who creates these treacherous, career-wrecking posts? It turns out that former employees and former business partners are responsible for many of them. Experience tells us that this group of people is often motivated by a strong sense of injustice and powerful emotions of anger, pain, and fear. They are hurt emotionally and financially when they lose their position, without good cause, as they see it. In their view, their treatment by their former employer or business partner constitutes a breach of trust. Now that you’ve breached it, so will they. With a vengeance - literally. And they can do it in a way few others can.

During their employment, former employees and business partners are likely to have access to sensitive information about the company, and in some cases, evidence of minor wrongdoings by their employer or business partner. They might be in possession of vast amounts of information about you, your family, your personal life, your business practices and some of your past mistakes and errors. They may now use this information against you.

Learn more about business defamation and the internet at the Internet Law Centre

9 Steps To Avoid Defamation By Employees And Former Business Partners

While you can’t entirely eliminate the possibility of breach of trust by former employees or business partners, you can reduce the likelihood of becoming a victim to online defamation. Here are some important steps you should take as a precaution:

Step 1:
Always remember that employees and business partners come and go. Someday they will no longer be with your company, but their memories of you will not end with their employment.

Step 2:
Place a high value on personal integrity and trustworthiness when assessing a new business partner or employee. Skills may be acquired, but integrity cannot. It is gold, and value it as such.

Step 3:
Always look for signals of disgruntlement among your employees, listen to their concerns and act to fix matters quickly.

Step 4:
Restrict access to sensitive personal data and private information. Keep your customers’ mailing lists private as well. Maintain them in safe, preferably password-protected databases, and never make these databases freely available to your employees, especially in a downloadable format.

Step 5:
Make sure that your organisation complies with all the requirements of the Data Protection Act of 1998. If you neglect your legal obligations to protect your mailing lists from being stolen, you could find yourself liable for prosecution.

Step 6:
Ensure that your employees are constantly aware of your uncompromising approach towards breach of data protection laws.

Step 7:
Make data protection compliance part of all your employees' employment contracts.

Step 8:
In the event that you discover evidence of an employee misusing or unlawfully downloading your company’s customer database, deal with the issue immediately and without compromise. It is important that a stern approach towards any form of breach of trust is appropriately communicated to your entire workforce.

Step 9:
Always play it straight. Be fair in your dealings with employees and partners and listen to their concerns. It is the right thing to do. And it can also prevent internet-reputation nightmares down the road.
Learn more about business defamation and the internet at the Internet Law Centre

Author: Yair Cohen

26/01/2012

Google told to disclose personal information of an anonymous blogger ina UK defamation case

Google Inc. is ordered by a UK Judge to disclose personal information of an anonymous blogger.


On Monday 23 January 2012, a High Court Judge in London ordered internet giant Google Inc. to disclose to a UK claimant, data and personal details which it holds in relation to a user who utilised Google’s Blogger to spread defamation against a UK based businessman.

Google was told to have information, which includes the blog owner’s user name, email address and IP address disclosed to Yair Cohen, lawyer acting for the claimant, who is fighting for defamatory content about him to be removed from the American based Blog. Read full article on Internet Law Expert blog.

21/08/2011

Blackmail And Extortion Of Men On Internet Chat Rooms

UPDATE TO Grooming Of Men On The Internet. Seriously…..

Further to the warning issued by Yair Cohen in March 2011.

Internet Law Experts Bains CohenWe have recently been instructed by a number of men who have fallen victim to an advanced honey trap set by a gang operating in various online chat rooms, targeting men over 40 years old.  In particular, this has been emanating from the Lycos 40+ chat room

The traps appear to involve attractive Eastern European...

Read more on Internet Law Expert blog

08/06/2011

Internet Defamation - Using Taggs to Spread Online Defamation

How To Destroy A Reputation In 5 Minutes. Don't Repeat At Home!!!

Defamation on the internet: Internet Defamation Case Study on How To Use Tagging To Spread Online Defamation.

How To Destroy A Reputation In 5 Minutes. Don't Repeat At Home!!!

defamation on the internet
Everyone has got their own soft spot. Depending on your profession, being called by a particular name in public, could cause you a lot of damage and harm your career. For a doctor, being commonly described as ‘negligent’, for a solicitor, being described as ‘incompetent’, for a builder, being described as ‘a cowboy’ or for a teacher, being described as ‘stupid’, would be regarded by any of these people as a personal attack on their reputation and integrity.

But not all insults are as harmful as the insults suffered by a top civil servant who worked as a social worker for the Children’s Service at a District Council in the North of the country. Having specialised for many years in children with learning difficulties and having achieved a tremendous professional respectability within his County Council and beyond, Stuart Granville (not his real name) was surprised to find out from a colleague that upon searching his name on the internet, the top three results that came out were news stories about social workers who had been jailed having been convicted of offences involving child pornography.

The news stories were not about Stuart Granville at all, but for one reason or another, they appeared at the top of the search pages against the search term ‘Stuart Granville’. The implications of this, as you can imagine were very serious for Stuart.

The association of his name, as someone who has been working with children, with articles about convicted child molesters were damaging to him beyond comprehension. Victim Of Online Defamation By Tagging Stuart immediately became concerned about his career and later on about his personal reputation and it was not long before he started to fear for his personal safety as well as for the wellbeing of his family. Stuart did not have his own website, in fact he was not allowed to have one because of the delicate position that he held within the Children’s Service, which meant that the vacuum which was on the internet against his name, was filled by someone who wanted to harm his career and who had the knowhow on how to associate a name with an article.

So who did this and how was it possible for one individual to cause so much devastation to an innocent and a very respectable member of the public? We will come back to the question of who did this in a moment. But first, let me show you the incredibly simple technique that was used to inflict such damage on Mr Granville and his family.

The technique that was used in this instance to attempt and trash Stuart Granville's reputation is incredible in its simplicity and is one which any individual or company should be aware of. The trick that was used here is called Tagging. Think of Tagging as a description of an item. The purpose of Tagging is to make it easy for internet search engines to associate an article or a product with certain keywords.

The best way to understand Tagging is to forget for a moment about the internet and think instead about a can of Coca Cola. If you were asked to tag a can of Coca Cola with the most relevant words that come to mind, most people will say ‘red’' 'fizzy’ ‘cold’ ‘can’ ‘drink’ ‘refreshing’ and so on. Now, think about this article that you are currently reading.
Defamation on the internet


How would you tag it? Or in other words, what would be the best way to describe it in simple short words? I would say, the first words that come to mind are ‘internet law’ ‘tagging’ ‘social worker’ ‘online reputation’ ‘reputation attack’ and so on. In the internet world the Tagging helps the search engines to associate a word, or a phrase with a product or an article. A tag can be added to any article which is posted on the internet by its publisher and sometimes also by third parties, if they are given permission to do so by the publisher.

So tagging is simply a series of keywords, which aim to describe an online item, whether a product, a service, a news story or an educational material. The publisher of the webpages, which contained news articles about a social worker who had been convicted of sexual offences involving children, had tagged each of these articles with a ‘Stuart Granville’ tag and from this point onwards, whenever an internet search was being carried out (particularly using Bing and Yahoo), the search engine made an association between Stuart Granville and the news articles which were tagged with his name.

This process of copying a news article and publishing it on the internet with damaging tags could be done in less than 5 minutes. It can however devastate people’s careers, families and reputation permanently. Simple? Yes. Powerful? Most certainly. In any event, Tagging is something to be aware of and to keep at the back of your mind at all times.

As for the perpetrator of this reputation attack on Stuart, Stuart believed beyond doubt that this was a parent who had had her children taken away from her by Social Services following a serious allegation of abuse.

At the time, she promised Stuart, who had been in charge of the Social Services Team which intervened and took the child away from his abusive mother, that he will live to regret the event. Stuart however, has never been able to prove who this person actually was.

To be fair, he never even seriously attempted to do so because once the problem was taken care of by specialist internet lawyers, and in fact disappeared within days, Stuart, very understandably just wanted to get on with his life, which is exactly what he did.
Yair Cohen

09/03/2011

Grooming Of Men On The Internet « Internet Law Expert

Grooming Of Men On The Internet « Internet Law Expert

via Grooming Of Men On The Internet « Internet Law Expert.

By social media lawyer Yair Cohen

Many men and women whether rich or poor, married or single go chatting in one of the internet forums, in most cases quite innocently. It is just another way to relax from the day's chores and have a relaxing conversation with other online chatters.
However, sometimes these chats could turn into something much more serious for the innocent victim.

Predators, that operate like a mafia, entrust innocent chatters to take the relationship a step further with dire consequences.

Read the full post on grooming and blackmail on internet forums on Internet Law Expert's blog

Grooming Of Men On The Internet « Internet Law Expert.

04/08/2010

Internet Law Expert Tip of the Day

Internet Defamation Lawyer Tip of the DayThere is an old saying that “the first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging”.

If you discover that your online reputation has been tarnished on a rough website and that bad results are appearing against your name upon every Google search, do yourself a favour and overcome the natural tendency of constantly clicking on the link to the bad result. A defamatory remark on the internet is similar to a toothache – we feel almost a compulsive need to touch and feel the pain – in case it has already gone without us noticing it.

Sadly, with defamatory remarks on the internet, the more you click the more powerful they become. Google gives priority to popularity. So every click makes the bad comment more dominant and in Google’s view also more important, which means that the defamatory remark will constantly be climbing up the search engine ladder with more people seeing it.

 When people see a link to a defamatory page against them, they tend to tell friends and family about it with the result that the link to the bad comment becomes very popular. The more people click on the link to see what is being said about their friend/family, the more likely it is that the link will remain at the top of the search engine.

So remember that the first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

An internet law expert will use special tools to examine the link and the defamatory page regularly without actually adding to its popularity. So if you are unfortunate enough to have enemies who have taken upon themselves to defame your character online – make sure you don’t tell the world about it and take legal advice from an internet law expert as soon as possible.

Author: Yair Cohen

Social media lawyer