Not only is SB-1411 focusing on impersonating a person(s), but the challenges are pouring in on that of “Credible Impersonation”. The use of a University website hosting random blog content written by students or faculty members garners a high degree of reader faith in source of information based on the credentials and academic standings of the university, how this is abused raises legal challenges for SB-1411. The challenges are of the content generated outside of the university curriculum, newsletters, community boards, classes etc.., not the University itself but in conjunction with the random and sometimes damaging content that has been protected by “Freedom of Speech”. All to which is now being challenged as it boarders “credible Impersonation” based on the perceived authority and subject matter expertise of content placed within a university domain.
There are many University professors, faculty members, alumni and students who have their own personal blogs hosted on their University domain with its university name and its high value .edu extension; it’s like instant credibility, an authority endorsement for whatever is written. These university websites and their free flowing “Freedom of Speech” sanctioned blogs carry the authority that triggers reader affinity for credibility and the preferential treatment given by the major search engines that rank the .edu blogs with high visibility based on their “Authority Site” status.
What SB-1411 outlines clearly is their “Known” uphill battle with Freedom of Speech, yet clearly aware of the personal damage to a person, the livelihood of a person and or their business that may be further mitigated when use of the .edu extension exists:
1. California plays host to world renowned Universities and Major Search Engines (SE’s), and the CA Senate knows the SE’s place high value to the content hosted on .edu websites which they refer to as “Authority Sites”. Thus a weighted authority value is given preferential “Ranking Position” by the SE’s on their Search Engine Results Pages (SERP’s) for the keyword(s) in the University hosted content.
2. While the SB-1411 bill would “provide that any person who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other electronic means, as specified, for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person is guilty of a misdemeanor”. The keyword is “credible” and when written on an Authority Site, the general public is cognizant of what the word “University” represents. More often than not the most satisfying element these people who leverage and abuse the authority of a University domain for their personal use is that they know as a credible source, others would mistake it for the genuine truth.
3. SB-1411, Sec 1. (b) “For purposes of this section, an impersonation is credible if another person would reasonably believe, or did reasonably believe, that the defendant was or is the person who was impersonated”. The law states “a person” impersonating another “person” and the legal challenge is the defendants use of a person’s name, while not impersonating the person but impersonating the authority and credibility of the content which mentions the person in a harmful, harassing, threatening, intimidating manner or attempt to defraud them.
4. Money, CA. has posted serious deficits year after year and when you read SB-1411 Sec 2. Look who may be playing bank during some troubled times. Banning the use of University Authority domains for personal blogs, their vendettas, critiques, rants and raves would eliminate that segments “credible” source altogether and save the CA tax payers a ton of money in what has every sign of eminent and large scale litigation.
I look for the government to do what is best for us all. As a professional AZ online reputation management SEO services provider at SEOBM and not a lawyer, I defer to one of the most respected lawyers handling cases of this nature, San Francisco lawyer Erica Johnstone, Johnstone, a partner at Ridder, Costa & Johnstone LLP., litigates online issues regarding harassment, the right to privacy, identity theft and impersonation, and defamation. She explains, “Almost all cyber-harassment goes unpunished, with devastating consequences to the victims, including loss of reputation, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of business and education opportunities, and emotional distress. SB 1411 places the costs of litigation squarely where they belong – on the party whose impersonation gave rise to the suit in the first place.”
Edward Mugits, I have witnessed the judicial system being over-run during several years of asbestosis litigation and the wide spread of .edu blogs promoting and demoting their asbestosis lawyers of choice. The courts were literally inundated and what I see here with the vague and shallow guidelines provided in SB-1411 have all the makings of a monumental 2011 and beyond litigation frenzy.
No comments:
Post a Comment