A myriad of problems has arisen with social media as the main culprit. Among these problems, there has been bullying, exploitation, miscommunication, fraud, as well as a few stolen identities. These few examples are only highlighting the crimes that the twenty-first century has faced thus far, and the worst - unfortunately for the world government - is yet to come. With each new crisis, the governments are scrambling with attempting to solve the problem; they want a more permanent solution. To do so, they intend to create new laws based solely on the happenings on social media. With the new programs and sites online, many doors have opened for the more negative people in the world and it seems that the best solution to shut any opportunities for evil would be to make new laws that would eliminate any such problem. Many argue, however, that to create such boundaries would make the “freedom of the internet” useless. In the three articles that will be explained, you will be able to step into some of many problems that plague the modern age; and thus decide for yourself whether it's a good or bad idea to create more rules and potentially “ruin” the internet’s “free space”.
Many argue that invading one’s personal accounts should to some degree, be illegal. Others are perfectly fine with the intrusion as they are more open to the idea that the government is ever-careful and watchful. Decide for yourself: In recent news; following the tracking of phones done by the NSA, Facebook has disclosed basic data on Law-Enforcement requests. In other words; Facebook has made some of its users’ accounts open to the government for inspection. The approximate number of requests for information from local, state and federal agencies covered “18,000 to 19,000 user accounts”. “These requests run the gaunt -- from things like a local sheriff trying to find a missing child to a federal marshal tracking a fugitive, to a police department investigating an assault, to a national security official investigating a terrorist threat,” is what Ted Ullyot; Facebook’s then general counsel said in a blog post where he disclosed said data. Numerous amounts of companies - including Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo have played a part in acquiring and distributing data to the government. As the numbers of inspection increase, more and more U.S. citizens push for transparency; they are not alone in the fight. Facebook, as well as, Microsoft have pushed for more transparency and they’re doing well. For most, it’s simply a matter of how dire the need of the online information is - for example, if the threat level is high they would gladly allow more official government offices to scour the social media accounts- it’s mostly a matter of who is asking for the information and why.
In somewhat similar news, with the recent uproar of internet fame, many are taking it upon themselves to record or photograph crises. This interrupts and sometimes jeopardizes the rescue or relief effort of the authorities. In the comic labeled “Truth, Justice, and Twitter: Social Media in the Comic Book Industry,” one sees Superman’s efforts to battle an enemy and protect his city are somewhat paused. This occurs as citizens stand and photograph the sequence; putting themselves as well as Superman into harm's way. Unfortunately for real-life heroes, this is a commonality among the citizens of today. At nearly every site of an incident or catastrophe, authorities find a plethora of citizens flooding the scene and making it nearly impossible to keep the area contained and safe. It occurs way too often that ambulances find themselves unable to make it to their patient in time as so many people surround the scene of the injured. In such a situation, when it is recorded or photographed without the full story outlined, online people see the image and assume that the first-responders are not good at their job. Small miscommunications such as this can make a job extremely difficult; as illustrated by the recent accusations against many a police officer who finds themselves confronted with a camera while doing their job. People immediately assume that because one cop is corrupt, that everyone else is too. The integrity of the job is interrupted and in extreme cases, whole cities can become out of order. It’s because of these disturbances that many authoritative figures find it imperative that laws be placed on such things.
Police officers, ambulances, and firefighters are not the only authorities to find themselves at the brunt of social media’s sometimes negative power. When a truck driver was found guilty of manslaughter and aggravated assault then his first trial ended in a mistrial; the second trial became tense for his party and for the families of the dead and victims of whom were angry. This anger meandered its way onto a passive-aggressive ironically-named Facebook page where each post of the trial was more obscene than the last. “Jakscht’s (the truck driver) defense attorneys discovered the Facebook page before the verdict was delivered and worried they would have to get Jakscht out of state for his safety if he was acquitted. They also worried jurors would see the page and be prejudiced”. This portion exemplifies the fact that as more people make themselves “felt” in the criminal-justice system - a traditionally closed system to ensure fair process - social media becomes more of a disruptive problem. It’s a problem that extends all around the courtroom: “Victims’ and defendants’ families are creating Facebook pages about cases. Attorneys have researched potential jurors on social media sites. Gangsters are menacing witnesses with social media postings. Journalists are texting and tweeting from the courtroom. Jurors have used search engines during trials to look up information related to the case”. It becomes more and more clear with these such cases that boundaries are needed to continue the fair process system.
Social media has proved itself to be both a gift and a curse. When court cases find themselves being discussed online, the integrity of authoritative jobs are pressured and government groups find it difficult to not invade privacy; many find the need for boundaries to be set. Others, however, disagree and want the freedom that their amendments and the internet itself plead. What do you think?
