Video: Legal Ethics in an Age of Technology

Legal Ethics in an Age of Technology...

That sounds a wee bit lofty, no?

Some of you are probably thinking, “Ethics?  We're talking about Facebook and Twitter, here, right?” Well as you will see in this video, the more involved a legal professional gets in social media, the more likely it is that an ethical question might just fall into his or her lap...



This video was originally presented at a Law Society of Upper Canada Continuing Professional Development Webinar, "Ethical Considerations in the Age of Technology" on October 7, 2011.

Join us on November 21, 2011 for Round II of our panel discussion with Bob Tarantino, Mitch Kowalski, Omar Ha-Redeye and yours very truly.  Register here.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Thinking of Making the Switch from Facebook to Google+?

Are you thinking of switching to Google+?

Eweek takes on this question today, and provides ten compelling reasons to make the change. Most convincing to me are:

• The ease of directing and limiting your shared items to specified groups of contacts, and
• Google+ introduces revolutionary video chat capability that enables instant video conferences involving up to ten participants (or more, I suppose, if multiple people are on camera at any of the participating locations).

The only problems so far, however, are that practically nobody can really figure out how to use Google+, and virtually nobody is using it.

Lots of people are apparently exploring, according to media reports - 10 million users in two weeks is certainly not shabby. Still, there's not a lot of activity going on yet, outside of the unapologetic geekosphere, which has been drooling non-stop since this service was launched.

My early review is that this newest social media giant is here to stay. I suspect it will ultimately develop a peaceful co-existence with Facebook and Twitter as competing networks with very different identities and distinct purposes.

I'd be very surprised to see any mass exodus from Facebook, as some are now predicting. Google+ will not topple the others simply because it exists, no matter how sexy, shiny and new it may now be.

As its real points of difference from the other sites emerge, however, it will likely be a very strong, permanent player.

What will the Google+ identity and culture ultimately be? I think it's way too early to tell, but I am quite sure this service will slowly and convincingly continue to evolve.

At very least, I suspect it will emerge as a central social media hub for lawyers (and businesses generally), due to its built in integration with other Google services. Its video conferencing capability is certainly going to be extremely tempting, as well, for limitless commercial applications.

The virtual courtroom, for example, could be much closer to reality than we think.

Imagine arguing procedural motions from the comfort of your own office via Google+ video sessions that involve all counsel and the presiding judge. All of this, free of charge, and no waiting time wasted before you are reached on the Court's list.

For what its worth, the official Google+ iPhone app is now available. Google+ Mobile download information for all platforms is here.

The iPhone version is quite sleek and I'm sure it will get lots of use.

(If we can figure this darned Google+ thing out, that is).

My Google+ profile page is here, if you'd care to share.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Proposed California Law Tackles Social Media, Privacy Concerns

A proposed new law in California would have radical implications for Facebook and other major social media sites:

The bill, which would apply only to users in California, would prohibit sites from displaying users' home addresses or telephone numbers without their consent and would mandate services remove of any information about a user within 48 hours of the request, or face a $10,000 fine.

Under the proposed law, social networking sites would be required to have all users choose their privacy settings--explained in "plain language"--as part of the registration process. It also spells out a privacy setting that would be mandated to serve as the default on all sites and that would prohibit "the display...of any information about a registered user, other than the user's name and city of residence, without the agreement of the user."

Perhaps predictably, Facebook has already commenced lobbying against the bill, claiming it is a "serious threat" to "California consumers' choices about use of personal data." However, their argument essentially hinges on the idea that consumers of social media products won't be able to give up their privacy until after they've become familiar with the service they're using.

This seems to be an odd complaint, but from Facebook's point of view it's quite obvious: the site's growth is dependent on users being able to easily and rapidly find their friends and family on it, and if users don't enter personal information relatively early on in the signup process it becomes much less likely that they'll do so later on (since once one is a member of the site, people tend to dismiss additional requests for personal information - which is exactly why sites like Facebook ask for it up front), and thus impede Facebook's core usability.

The question, then, is whether the facility granted by being able to use Facebook (and for all that we say "sites like Facebook," we of course are really only talking about Facebook at this point, as most other social media services aren't nearly so personal-information-dependent for their use) is of more benefit, from a public policy perspective, than the privacy that one inherently must give up to use those sites effectively.

At this point, the question of Facebook's social utility is one that requires more serious debate. Facebook's use as a platform for collective action is only starting to be exploited, whether it is for political action or even modifying Facebook's design and policies thereof. On the other hand, "Facebook-stalking" has entered our lexicon for a reason: the site makes it exceptionally easy to cyber-bully people, and even to do so anonymously.

Does Facebook's "power for good" outweigh the dangers it can create with its relatively invasive standard privacy setting? Does it at least balance it enough that a law like the one proposed in California is needless? This writer is genuinely not sure; on the one hand, laws like this do seem somewhat nanny-statish, but on the other hand firmly reminding people that their privacy can be at risk when participating in social media seems to be an obvious good.

- Christopher Bird, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Personalized Search and "Filter Bubbles"

Do personalized search algorythms inevitably narrow the information that we access? Eli Pariser discusses "filter bubbles" at Ted:

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG