Mediaboss Marketing

Social networking has become part of our daily life with 93 percent of Filipino Internet users having their own Facebook account.

On the whole, this is an excellent social phenomenon. But there is also a bad part of it.

Consider, for example, a Facebook post by Mr. Y that reads: Senator X is a crook. He stole millions of taxpayers money from the PDAF. He is a certified thief. He deserves all the public humiliation that he is now getting.

This kind of comment is definitely libelous. It may be the basis for a civil case for damages and a criminal case for libel.

The post, in turn, is admissible in evidence not only in a civil case but also in a criminal case. (SC En Banc Resolution dated September 24, 2002 in AM No. 01-07-01)

The Facebook post in question is considered a document pursuant to the functional equivalence and non-discrimination principles under the E-Commerce Act of 2000 (ECA) and the Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE), which the Supreme Court promulgated in 2001 to implement the ECA in our courts of law.

Under these principles, an electronic document is considered the functional equivalent of a paper-based document and should not be discriminated against as evidence solely on the ground that it is not in the standard paper form.

In fact, Section 12 of the ECA expressly provides that nothing in the application of the rules of evidence shall deny admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document on the sole ground that it is in electronic form, or on the ground that it is not the standard form.

The REE further provides that [w]henever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules. (Section 1, Rule 3)

In laymans terms, the Facebook post in question should be treated as a paper-based document. The legal question is how to prove or authenticate this Facebook post as evidence in a court of law.

Read more:
Are social media posts admissible in evidence?

Cherry Hill, NJ (PRWEB) April 30, 2014

The Mid-Atlantic Club Management Association (MACMA) is hosting it's "Always On. Always Connected. Social Networking is Now." event at the Cherry Hill Health & Racquet Club on Thursday, May 1 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

This event will include three dynamic presentations from top social media marketing experts including:

Josh Gerber from Brick Bodies Dawn Taylor from Members First Jeff Zelaya from Vocus

Topics that will be covered include: Facebook Pages, Twitter, Publicity, Content Marketing, Social Selling, Email Marketing, LinkedIn and How to Incorporate Social Media into a Marketing and Sales Strategy.

In addition to the presentations from the social media speakers, there will be guided round-table discussions and lots of networking opportunities with vendors, peers and the members of the MACMA. Lunch and parking is included in the registration and spots are limited. You can register by clicking here.

The event is open to MACMA members and non-members.

About MACMA: The MACMA is a professional network of athletic, health, fitness, racquet and sports clubs throughout Maryland, Virginia, Washington DC, Delaware and Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Founded in 1986 by a group of local club owners, MACMAs mission is to address the needs of the industry at a regional level and to promote the interests of the industry within the region.

About Jeff Zelaya: Jeff Zelaya is a social selling expert, marketing consultant and a professional public speaker who has presented at 55 events in the past 3 years. Hes the #1 most recommended sales professional on LinkedIn under the age of 30 and generated over a million dollars in revenue in 18 months by only using LinkedIn for lead generation. Jeff works at Vocus and is an award-winning sales executive and sales trainer.

See the rest here:
Jeff Zelaya to Speak at MACMA's "Always On. Always Connected. Social Networking is Now." Event

Rand Paul On The Issues Government Surveillance The Fourth Amendment
watch latest news daily update new update galobal ecnomic 2014.

By: saba aslam

Go here to see the original:
Rand Paul On The Issues Government Surveillance & The Fourth Amendment - Video

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
This is a synthesized speech reading of the Wikipedia article "Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and is intended primarily for blind and vi...

By: Frank Eckstein

Originally posted here:
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Video

What the final clause of the Fourth Amendment means in interpreting the government's rights

An NSA facility in Utah (Reuters)

A secret opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recently released to the public is a reminder that the NSA is still conducting mass surveillance on millions of Americans, even if that fact has faded from the headlines. This would seem to violate the Fourth Amendment if you read its plain text. So how is it that FISA-court judges keep signing off on these sweeping orders?

They base their rulings on Smith v. Maryland, a case the Supreme Court decided decades ago. Before we examine the glaring flaw in the jurisprudence of the FISA-court judges applying it to mass surveillance, here's a brief refresher on that case.

Smith began with a 1976 house robbery. After the break-in, the victim started getting obscene phone calls from a man identifying himself as the robber.

On one occasion, the caller asked that she step out on her front porch; she did so, and saw the 1975 Monte Carlo she had earlier described to police moving slowly past her home. On March 16, police spotted a man who met McDonoughs description driving a 1975 Monte Carlo in her neighborhood. By tracing the license plate number, police learned that the car was registered in the name of petitioner, Michael Lee Smith. The next day, the telephone company, at police request, installed a pen register at its central offices to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioners home. The police did not get a warrant or court order before having the pen register installed. The register revealed that on March 17 a call was placed from petitioners home to McDonoughs phone. On the basis of this and other evidence, the police obtained a warrant to search petitioners residence.

The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy for numbers dialed from his house because a third party, the telephone company, kept a record of all calls dialed, as is commonly understood by phone users. The NSA argues that, per this precedent, they can obtain the call records of every American, even if the vast majority of us are suspected of no wrongdoing.

Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett explains why judges relying on Smith to legitimize mass surveillance are actually going far beyond the precedent that the Supreme Court established. A key difference between what the Court allowed in Smith and what the NSA is doing: Particularity.

Recall the text of the Fourth Amendment, and especially the part that I've rendered in bold:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

See the original post:
The Legal Foundation of NSA Surveillance on Americans