JasonEFF's dashboard

JasonEFF replied on July 25, 2008 00:29 to the question "Someone is using our copyrighted name as a handle" in Twitter:

Hey -- Good luck contacting them; I'm sure if you get in touch you can negotiate something. However, I should point out two things in terms of legal rights to a name:

1) You can't copyright a name; you can only trademark a name.
2) Even if your company has trademarks on the name Aquent, that doesn't prevent other people from using it on the Internet legally. It only prevents them from selling the same products as you in the same markets. Or, if it is a very famous name like "McDonalds" or "Coke", from diluting your brand name in a commercial setting.

Since a Twitter handle is not usually commercial, it is unlikely that you have any rights to stop this personal legally. That said, as I mentioned, if you get in touch with them, you could potentially convince them to use a different name or join your team!

Best,
Jason

A comment on the idea "Why would I want my question to be viewable to everyone, it seems that this application is not particularly useful for a service organization such as ours." in True Legal Partners:

Interesting. Since the privilege sits with the client and not the attorney, I think most would see a client's voluntary publication of the information as a waiver. But you raise a good point about whether the fact that the firm sets up its own section of GSFT could raise ethical issues. Again, I weigh on the side of no, as long as the lawyers warn their clients both on the website and directly in their communications and marketing that confidential information is privileged and can lose this protection under certain circumstances, such as unrestricted publication on a public forum. – JasonEFF, on June 02, 2008 01:00

JasonEFF replied on May 31, 2008 06:59 to the idea "Why would I want my question to be viewable to everyone, it seems that this application is not particularly useful for a service organization such as ours." in True Legal Partners:

Paul: This is a great topic. A lot of professions, like law, operate on the assumption of confidentiality. But, of course, lawyers speak in public all the time -- at conferences, in court, to the press, at continuing legal education workshops. So I think there is a lot that lawyers can say publicly about how they practice law. In fact, many lawyers are now blogging publicly, so that's another example of a more open, public approach to professionalism.

I agree, though, that one should not discuss specific cases on open forums, like GSFT, as it risks losing the protection of attorney-client privilege and violating the duty of confidentiality. However, beyond case-specific posts, I think lawyers can surely post hypotheticals and opinions, as well as referrals and other help on how to find more information on legal problems. They can also help clients and potential clients understand how to get the most out of their lawyers for the money they pay.

As to your specific question about removing posts, I think it would be bad form for GSFT to take anything down that was posted because at that point, it is part of the public record. Any privilege in those communications has already been lost, so removing them would not revive it. Alternatively, I think it is best to warn clients about many kinds of public disclosure can potentially waive privilege, whether on here or in email or anywhere. That kind of education is critical in the digital age for any client, not just those that use this service.

JasonEFF marked one of Amy Muller's replies in Twitter as useful. Amy Muller replied to the problem "I'm getting a bug every time I try to view my friend requests".

JasonEFF replied on February 06, 2008 18:42 to the problem "I'm getting a bug every time I try to view my friend requests" in Twitter:

It's now fixed for me! Using Leopard/Firefox.

JasonEFF replied on February 03, 2008 17:52 to the question "hi, clicking on the link '3 new follower requests' gets me on an error-page. what can i do?" in Twitter:

Yay! It's working for me now on both MacBook (Firefox) and iPhone (Safari)! Thanks guys!

JasonEFF replied on February 01, 2008 02:22 to the question "hi, clicking on the link '3 new follower requests' gets me on an error-page. what can i do?" in Twitter:

still not working for me either. 28 friend requests that I can't answer and counting...

JasonEFF replied on January 26, 2008 21:37 to the question "hi, clicking on the link '3 new follower requests' gets me on an error-page. what can i do?" in Twitter:

yeah, me too. I got an email from Twitter saying they've logged it as a bug and are looking into it and will email me when it's fixed, but not ETA. :-\

JasonEFF replied on January 24, 2008 16:18 to the question "hi, clicking on the link '3 new follower requests' gets me on an error-page. what can i do?" in Twitter:

Same here. Mac OS X, Firefox 2.0.0.11

JasonEFF replied on January 23, 2008 05:09 to the problem "I'm getting a bug every time I try to view my friend requests" in Twitter:

Yup.

JasonEFF reported a problem in Twitter on January 22, 2008 03:24:

I'm getting a bug every time I try to view my friend requests

I get the upside down bird. Been happening for weeks. Is there any way to fix it?

JasonEFF, an employee of EFF, replied on October 18, 2007 14:55 to the idea "EFF needs a Glossary of Terms!" in EFF:

Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? Seriously, though, great idea.

JasonEFF, an employee of EFF, replied on October 18, 2007 14:53 to the discussion "Interesting case of the EFF vs. Landmark Education" in EFF:

The thing is, the documentary didn't really disclose any of those "technologies" even if you believe them to be worthy of protection. The documentary Landmark tried to censor was mainly critical of their recruitment tactics. To prove its point, it sent a reporter into one of their sessions with a secret camera to film the pitch and show the intense and arguably abusive manner in which the Landmark members pushed their "technology" on the audience.

In doing so, it did show a few pages of Landmark's "training manual" that included specific scripts and guidelines for wearing down audience members in order to convince them to continue with the program. I suppose one could call that "technology" in some way but either way, a documentary exposing Landmark's controversial nature is protected by the First Amendment and not infringing on any rights in the technology.

JasonEFF started following the discussion "Interesting case of the EFF vs. Landmark Education" in EFF.

JasonEFF started following the idea "EFF needs a Glossary of Terms!" in EFF.

JasonEFF, an employee of EFF, shared an idea in EFF on July 26, 2007 06:46:

Free Speech Hosting: 11 Web Hosts That Won’t Dump You at the First Sign of Controversy

http://dedicatedhostingguide.net/2007...

JasonEFF, an employee of EFF, replied on June 12, 2007 22:27 to the question "Do I need to have a registered trademark in every country I do business in?" in EFF:

Ahh, one of my favorite situations. Check out this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser. There are two companies called "Budweiser" that make beer -- one in the US and one in the Czech Republic:

* Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) from Anheuser-Busch in the United States
* Budweiser Budvar from Budějovický Budvar in the Czech Republic

As I understand it, they each have valid trademarks in their own jurisdictions and the other companies, to the extent they want to sell beer in those countries, have to do it under a different brand name.

JasonEFF, an employee of EFF, replied on June 12, 2007 06:40 to the discussion "The Open Rights Group looks like the UK version of the EFF" in EFF:

ORG is a great organization that we work with whenever we can. However, there is no official tie between EFF and ORG. Think of us as cousins across the pond that occasionally play in the same band together when we go on tour. :)

JasonEFF, an employee of EFF, replied on June 12, 2007 06:39 to the question "Do laws vary between states?" in EFF:

Because we live in a country that has both a federal system of government and separate state systems of government, every citizen in each state is operating under two sets of laws at the same time. Thus, here in California, I'm subject to both California's laws and the U.S. laws that Congress passes. So while state laws can vary, the federal law tends to stay the same. BTW, if there is a conflict between then, Federal law always trumps.

That said, since so many of the issues with blogging and free speech arise under the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution, that single Constitutional Right governs and protects much of our online speech.

Also, in 1996, Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (the rest of which was thrown out as an unconstitutional restriction on adult material online). Section 230, however, is a broad protections for online publishers and users of interactive computer systems and makes sure that we can't be sued when we republish material online that we've acquired from third parties.

One quick example of Section 230 at work is here on Satisfaction. If I post a product review from another website on here that ends up being libelous, Section 230 protects Satisfaction and me (as one of its users) from any liability for posting it. The original author could be sued, but we can't. It helps keep the Internet very open and free in terms of what people are allowed to say and share, which is a great boon for free speech online.

JasonEFF, an employee of EFF, replied on June 12, 2007 06:31 to the question "Can I sue if my site is wrongly taken down?" in EFF:

Thanks! Yes, you can sue if someone uses fraud or materially misleading information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to take down anything you publish online. The exact section is Title 17, Section 512(f).

Another important case EFF took to help establish this way to fight back against illegal takedowns was OPG v. Diebold.