Facebook is Pimping your Children

Now that Harvard's Berkman Center has reassured us that child predators are not a threat online, we've got a new hustler to worry about. And this time it's Facebook. Buried in the Facebook Terms of Use is this little read and considered clause:

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

Yes Facebook can SELL little Susie's beach picture to Playboy for their Facebook Hotties edition. Yesterday, an astute follower of my burgeoning Facebook site pointed out to me that I have freely given Facebook the absolute irrevocable right to SELL anything I post to ANYONE ANYWHERE in the world. (This person is not a lawyer, mind you, and they say lawyers ruin everything). Not only can Facebook sell my content, they can SUBLICENSE it to anyone anytime without any further consent on my part or on the part of the person portrayed in whatever it is that I have posted.


So gentle Facebook readers, fans, posters, devotees, tell everyone you know that anything you post on Facebook now BELONGS TO FACEBOOK. They can sell it. They can license it to others.


Those cute baby pictures - GAP KIDS. Your one of a kind video documentary on the Bush White House - CNN. Your son or daughter's half-naked drunken orgy - HARVARD ADMISSIONS. Those pictures of you skinny dipping at camp in 1972 . . . . okay okay I know, well who would want those? Perhaps the AARP NEWSLETTER.


You and your children are hereby warned. Tell everyone you know: Facebook is THE MAN. They are George Orwell's 1984 and the Bush Administration ALL IN ONE. They want your children. They want you. Content content content is king. It all belongs to Facebook. And you just gave it to them for FREE!!!

Clinical Trials of NYC Foster Children - NYSDOH Coverup Continues

As I editorialized here in 2005, between 1986 and 2001 hundreds of NYC foster children were involuntarily enrolled in medical experiments. Soon after the story broke in the NYT, NYC commissioned a study by the widely respected Vera Institute for Justice. Almost four years later, that long awaited (forgotten?) study was finally released today.

After interviewing people familiar with the drug trials, reviewing policy documents, and examining the child welfare files of 796 children, Vera staff identified 532 children who were enrolled in 88 clinical trials and observational research studies.


The Vera Report identifies the procedures established to enroll and monitor these children, determines whether the procedures were followed, and discusses children's outcomes. It also includes the recommendations of Vera and its Clinical Trials Advisory Board to help child welfare staff, elected representatives, and community advocates address the concerns raised by some of the findings.


In my opinion, Vera worked hard to keep the process fair and independent. Unlike Harvard Law School's Berkman Center, Vera demanded and got complete access to files and records and the full cooperation of staff; full editorial control over the final report; and
oversight by Vera’s own advisory board.


The most disturbing aspect of the report is the complete lack of cooperation by the NYS Department of Health which engaged in an ongoing cover-up by refusing to release medical records:

Vera reviewers found a significant amount of medical information in the child welfare files. However, citing confidentiality laws, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) refused multiple requests from Children’s Services that it use its supervisory authority to allow staff from Vera or Children’s Services to review clinical trial research or medical records. This limited Vera’s review in several ways, including the ability to fully document the frequency and severity of toxicity (side effects), the individual outcomes of trial participation for the children in the review, and the existence of valid, signed informed consent documents.

The Vera review found evidence that supported some concerns about the participation of
foster children and their families in clinical trials. This evidence includes violations of state
regulations, Children’s Services’ own policies for clinical trial review and enrollment, and
federal regulations for protecting human subjects.


The NYSDOH has information which it is withholding which might shed additional light on Vera's findings. Perhaps NYSDOH, like Harvard's Berkman Center, is in the pocket of, in this case, the drug industry which sponsored the medical experiments or maybe not. I don't know enough about how NYSDOH and big pharma operates to address this issue. What I do know is that Governor Patterson, Attorney General Cuomo and the NYS Legislature should all conduct their own review of NYSDOH to make sure that NYC's most vulnerable children were not sold by the government to the drug industry in its relentless pursuit of profits.

Express Observation (Pedophile Playground)

Millionaire pedophile donates playground equipment and exposes himself during dedication ceremony, plaque removed Link

Express Observation (Berkman Cyber-Whitewash)

More on the cyber-whitewash re: online predators from the WashPost @ Link

Join me on Twitter!

I have joined the world of Twitter as a supplement to this blog. Twitter is great for those "one off" observations and links which are too insignificant for a blog entry (or, more likely, discovered when I'm too busy to blog!). You can easily follow me on Twitter by going to my Twitter page. You can also create your own Twitter account and participate in an interactive conversation. With only 160 characters per entry it's a quick easy way to keep everyone apprised of the latest intel as it happens.

Express Observation (Judge Disbarred for Child Porn)

Disbarment Urged for NJ Judge Convicted of Child Porn and Sex Trafficking Link

http://twitter.com/jamesmarshlaw/statuses/1149358876

Foreign Policy Magazine Exposes International Orphan Myth

Last month, Foreign Policy Magazine ran a hard-hitting expose entitled The Lie We Love. It's premise: "Foreign adoption seems like the perfect solution to a heartbreaking imbalance: Poor countries have babies in need of homes, and rich countries have homes in need of babies. Unfortunately, those little orphaned bundles of joy may not be orphans at all."


Finally some truth in advertising. Here's reporter E.J. Graff on the international orphan myth:

We all know the story of international adoption: Millions of infants and toddlers have been abandoned or orphaned—placed on the side of a road or on the doorstep of a church, or left parentless due to AIDS, destitution, or war. These little ones find themselves forgotten, living in crowded orphanages or ending up on the streets, facing an uncertain future of misery and neglect. But, if they are lucky, adoring new moms and dads from faraway lands whisk them away for a chance at a better life.


Unfortunately, this story is largely fiction.


Westerners have been sold the myth of a world orphan crisis. We are told that millions of children are waiting for their “forever families” to rescue them from lives of abandonment and abuse. But many of the infants and toddlers being adopted by Western parents today are not orphans at all. Yes, hundreds of thousands of children around the world do need loving homes. But more often than not, the neediest children are sick, disabled, traumatized, or older than 5. They are not the healthy babies that, quite understandably, most Westerners hope to adopt. There are simply not enough healthy, adoptable infants to meet Western demand—and there’s too much Western money in search of children. As a result, many international adoption agencies work not to find homes for needy children but to find children for Western homes.

More from this excellent article:

Along the way, the international adoption industry has become a market often driven by its customers. Prospective adoptive parents in the United States will pay adoption agencies between $15,000 and $35,000 (excluding travel, visa costs, and other miscellaneous expenses) for the chance to bring home a little one. Special needs or older children can be adopted at a discount. Agencies claim the costs pay for the agency’s fee, the cost of foreign salaries and operations, staff travel, and orphanage donations. But experts say the fees are so disproportionately large for the child’s home country that they encourage corruption.


To complicate matters further, while international adoption has become an industry driven by money, it is also charged with strong emotions. Many adoption agencies and adoptive parents passionately insist that crooked practices are not systemic, but tragic, isolated cases. Arrest the bad guys, they say, but let the “good” adoptions continue. However, remove cash from the adoption chain, and, outside of China, the number of healthy babies needing Western homes all but disappears.

Read the article and then check out the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism for more information. Listen to Leonard Lopate's interview with the author, E.J. Graff, Associate Director and Senior Researcher, Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism.

Cyber Conflict of Interest - Harvard Law School's Berkman Center Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown

At first glance, the news in today's New York Times that "the Internet may not be such a dangerous place for children after all" will give many a sense of relief. Look closer, however, and you'll quickly discover that cyber-industry heavyweights have co-opted the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. By selling itself to the industry it is allegedly investigating, the Berkman Center has become both a shrill and a shield for the powerful well-funded online establishment.


First the "news." According to the NYT:

A task force created by 49 state attorneys general to look into the problem of sexual solicitation of children online has concluded that there really is not a significant problem.


The findings ran counter to popular perceptions of online dangers as reinforced by depictions in the news media like NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” series. One attorney general was quick to criticize the group’s report.


The panel, the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, was charged with examining the extent of the threats children face on social networks like MySpace and Facebook, amid widespread fears that adults were using these popular Web sites to deceive and prey on children.


. . . . .


The 278-page report, released Tuesday, was the result of a year of meetings between dozens of academics, experts in childhood safety and executives of 30 companies, including Yahoo, AOL, MySpace and Facebook.


The task force, led by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, looked at scientific data on online sexual predators and found that children and teenagers were unlikely to be propositioned by adults online. In the cases that do exist, the report said, teenagers are typically willing participants and are already at risk because of poor home environments, substance abuse or other problems.

Okay, so they blame the victims, which is bad enough and sadly typical, but check out my highlights above . . . . "a year of meetings between dozens of academics, experts in childhood safety and executives of 30 companies . . . " So far so good right? Looks like a completely legit, hands-off, no holds barred review of the science behind child exploitation (which is presumably what the 49 state attorney generals wanted). The word "meetings" sounds benign enough while the ever-reassuring term "cooperation" becomes the justification for the regulators getting in bed with the regulated.


Next let's just click on over to the Bekman Center to find out who is [BUZZ WORD ALERT] "partnering" [BUZZ WORD ALERT] with the organization conducting the independent review of internet safety:

The Berkman Center Announces Formation of Internet Safety Task Force to Identify and Develop Online Safety Tools: More than 20 Organizations including AOL, AT&T, Comcast, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, MySpace, NCMEC, Symantec, Verizon and Yahoo! Join Task Force.


We should work together - private firms, technologists, experts from the non-profit world, and leaders in government - to solve online safety issues as a joint effort,” said John Palfrey, Executive Director of The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. “We are honored to assume the leadership of this Task Force and excited to convene the broad array of interests represented by the group.”


. . . . .


"The Berkman Center’s impressive research on the challenges and opportunities offered by the Internet makes them the ideal leader for the Task Force," said Hemanshu Nigam, Chief Security Officer for Fox Interactive Media and MySpace. "We look forward to partnering with The Berkman Center and the Task Force to identify the technologies and tools that will be available industry-wide to provide a safer online experience for all Internet users."

If this is not enough to convince you (and the apparently tranquilized 49 state attorney generals who agreed to this snake pit of self-dealing conflicts of interests) that there are more than a few questions about the independence of the process here, check out who "financially $upported the so-called independent review demanded by the tax-payer funded and democratically elected 49 state attorney generals:

These organizations provided financial support for the operations of the Task Force:


NewsCorp/MySpace

Microsoft

AOL

MTV Networks/Viacom

AT&T

Symantec

Turner Broadcasting

Loopt

Linden Lab

Actually the report should be entitled "How the Cyber-Industry Hoodwinked 49 of the Most Powerful Law Enforcement Officers in the Country and got the New York Times to run its Press Release as News." Oh, and I almost forgot, "and Blamed the Victims for their own Exploitation."

Court Denies Indefinite Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders

Last week the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case of first impression, limited the federal Government's ability to place in indefinite civil commitment "sexually dangerous" persons under a federal law enacted as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006 [18 U.S.C. § 4248].


Section 4248 authorizes the federal government to civilly commit, in a federal facility, any "sexually dangerous" person "in the custody" of the Bureau of Prisons--even after that person has completed his entire prison sentence. To initiate commitment under Section 4248, the Attorney General need only certify that a person in federal custody is "sexually
dangerous."


According to the Court in this case,U.S. v. Comstock, such a certification automatically stays a person's release from prison without proof that they have committed any new offense; Section 4248 empowers the Attorney General to prolong federal detention without presenting evidence or making any preliminary showing other than an allegation of dangerousness.


Perhaps not surprisingly, the Court found several problems with this statutory scheme.

First, although the statute defines a "sexually dangerous person" to be one who "has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation and who is sexually dangerous to others," and who suffers from a severe mental illness such
that he would "have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released," neither "sexually violent conduct" nor "child molestation" are terms defined by the statute.


Second, after the Attorney General files the certification, the district court holds a hearing and if it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the person is sexually dangerous the court must commit the person to federal custody. At that point the Attorney General must make "all reasonable efforts" to transfer responsibility for the person to an appropriate state authority. Unless and until a state assumes this responsibility, however, the person is held in federal confinement for as long as the person remains "sexually dangerous."


The main question in the appeal was whether the Constitution grants Congress
the authority to enact Section 4248. The Constitution requires that a specific enumerated power support every statute enacted by Congress


The Government argued that both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution permitted it to enact legislation authorizing broad federal civil commitment powers.


Concerning the Commerce Clause, the Court held that "federal commitment of 'sexually dangerous persons' may well be—like the suppression of guns in schools or the redress of gender-motivated violence—a sound proposal as a matter of social policy. But policy justifications do not create congressional authority. Hence Section 4248 lies beyond Congress’s Commerce Clause authority."


In terms of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Court held that although the Clause
reaches broadly, it does so only to effectuate powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. "The Necessary and Proper Clause simply does not—in and of itself—
create any Congressional power."


The Court found that although the federal Government is empowered to run a prison system, "[t]he fact of previously lawful federal custody simply does not, in itself, provide Congress with any authority to regulate future conduct that occurs outside of the prison walls."


Regarding the federal government's ability to regulate all sex-related crimes, the Court held that "[c]onsistent with Congress’s limited powers, federal statutes regulating sex crimes are limited in number and breadth, specifically requiring a connection to interstate commerce," Since Section 4248 targets "sexual dangerousness" generally, without any requirement that this undefined danger relate to conduct that the federal government may constitutionally regulate, it sweeps far too broadly to be a valid effort to prevent federal criminal activity. Most crimes of sexual violence violate state and not federal law.


Finally, the Government argued that the Necessary and Proper Clause justifies Section 4248 because it retains the "power to prosecute" all persons in its custody charged with criminal offenses. The Court concluded that since the Government had already charged, tried, and convicted the defendants, it retains no power to prosecute or civilly commit them.


The Court suggested that "if the federal government has serious concerns about the
dangerousness of a person due to be released from federal prison, it can notify state authorities, who may use their well-settled police and parens patriae powers to pursue civil commitment under state law."


For now, at least, the conservative Fourth Circuit has declared that there is no Constitutional basis for a wide-ranging federal civil commitment power.


As of March 2007, twenty states had civil commitment laws. The New York Times had an excellent series on this issue in 2007.


UPDATE: In U.S. v. Howell, an 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued a few days after U.S. v. Comstock, the Court found that another part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 dealing with the registration of sex offenders, does not violate the Commerce Clause. The Court held that "[b]ased upon the language, statutory scheme, declaration of purpose, and legislative history of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) [42 U.S.C. §§ 16901-16991], we conclude SORNA was intended to regulate the interstate movement of sex offenders. . . . Covering the registration of wholly intrastate sex offenders is merely incidental to Congress’s tracking of sex offenders in interstate commerce. Therefore, § 16913 is constitutional."

Lawyer Ethics and the Registered Sex Offender

An associate who was fired from Kirkland & Ellis in 2004 after admitting he attempted to arrange a meeting "to engage in an oral sexual act" with someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl has been suspended from practicing law in New York for three years.


In a rare 3-2 decision in a disciplinary matter, a five-judge panel of the New York Appellate Division, 1st Department, agreed that Steven J. Lever "brought shame to himself and to this State's Bar" by using the Internet "to prey on minors for purposes of sexual gratification." They also agreed his conduct required "a significant sanction."


However, finding a dearth of New York precedent on point, the judges could not agree on the appropriate punishment.


The three-judge majority, looking at similar cases from other states, cited the "substantial and credible mitigation evidence" in confirming a hearing panel's recommended three-year suspension.


In a vehement dissent, Justices David B. Saxe and James M. Catterson argued for disbarment. Catterson wrote for the two.


"Because I believe that a convicted and registered sex offender has forfeited the privilege of admission to the bar and the elevated status of the officer of the court, I must respectfully take the unusual step in a disciplinary proceeding and dissent," Catterson wrote. "I believe that any penalty short of disbarment would not comport with the standards to which a member of the bar should adhere. I do not believe that we can reconcile the status of registered sex offender with that of a member of the bar in good standing."


In November 2005, Lever pleaded guilty to the single misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to six years' probation and certified as a level-one sexual offender.


Under New York law, attorneys convicted of a felony are automatically disbarred, but disciplinary authorities have discretion when a misdemeanor is involved.


According to the committee's report, "[P]reying upon ... minors for sexual gratification by means of the internet should be dealt with more harshly" than the referee's proposed six-month suspension.


Read the full story here on Law.com