On The Shady Side... Of Green

Greenwashing has been a "thing" for some time. Now shareholders are making proposals based on it.

What is greenwashing? My spellcheck doesn't like the word. Apparently, it is the environmental equivalent of whitewashing, and it's been in use for thirty years.  With whitewashing, one spins something "bad" to sound "not so bad".  With greenwashing, one spins something not environmentally friendly to seem... environmentally responsible. It's mostly a PR and honest advertising issue. It may involve oxymorons such as "clean diesel", maybe "clean coal", and "100% organic".

Legal bloggers for Jenner & Block LLP  Todd Toral and P. J. Novack penned an interesting explanation of greenwashing, and a groundbreaking attempt by Greenpeace and others to use the old Green Guides offensively against a Big Oil company for, allegedly, misleading consumers about the greenness and social responsibility of its work.

https://consumer.jenner.com/2021/04/does-novel-greenwashing-enforcement-action-portend-a-new-trend.html#page=1

Speaking of Honest advertising, the legal blogsphere is buzzing (a little bit) about dishonest influencers.  Apparently, the public is not smart enough to figure out that if a celebrity endorsement looks like for profit product placement, sounds like paid product placement... it most probably is a glorified advertisement.  The thing is, ones greenback-related motivations have to be disclosed every time, and perhaps the same goes for book promotion.

For the IP Law Watch blog of law firm K&L Gates of Boston, blogger Keisha Phippen discusses the topic of responsible influencing, and offers excellent and easy tips for how to avoid acting on the shady side of the law.

https://www.iplawwatch.com/2021/04/are-you-influencing-responsibly/

Finally, for today's loosely linked theme of shady doings, green stuff, money and deception is a great green gem about ransomware put out by Stephen Noel O'Connor of Leman.

Go here for the full article as a .pdf

https://thoughtleadership.leman.ie/post/102gt6m/leman-cyber-update-ransomware-explained

 

Or read the extract here:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=91e09e07-b9e4-4fab-ba95-b45f6fc5d453

Did you know that in some countries in may be illegal to pay ransomware? 

Oh, and if you got the letter from Kroger about their pharmacy records being hacked at Accellion, remember there is a time limit (window closes May 31st)  to take up that offer for 24 months of Experian "Identity Works" id theft coverage. Separately, American Anesthesiology was compromised in a phishing attack. It might be wise to freeze your credit (free to do, easy and free to undo as long as you retain your PIN).

Equifax 1-800-525-6285

Experian 1-888-397-3742

TransUnion 1-800-680-7289

 

 

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  http://www.rowenacherry.com

Giving Self-Publishing a Bad Name

If you live in or near Maryland, you'll have heard about the scandal and criminal charges surrounding Baltimore ex-mayor Catherine Pugh's self-published series, "Healthy Holly." The books are intended to teach children about health issues such as nutrition, exercise, etc. Pugh sold $500,000 worth of them to the University of Maryland Medical System while serving on its board. She has also been accused of pre-selling books that were ultimately never printed and of sometimes selling the same hypothetical copies more than once to different customers, then not fulfilling the orders. UMMS donated its share of the books to the Baltimore City school system, which has stated that it didn't use any of them in the curriculum. Most of those copies have been warehoused rather than given to children. (In addition to the publishing-related charges, Pugh has also been convicted of fraud and tax evasion.)

Here's a timeline of the major events in the developing case, with a photo of a few of the book covers:

Healthy Holly Book Scandal

The books have been described as "clumsily" and "sloppily" written and produced. They're said to "contain grammatical and spelling errors, such as a main character’s name being spelled two different ways and the word 'vegetable' appearing as 'vegetale'." It strikes me as sad that many people may get their sole impression of self-publishing from this case.

This article goes into more detail about the series and what was done with the copies:

Just How Many "Healthy Holly" Books?

Only two of the books are listed on Amazon, as far as I could see, and neither has a "look inside" feature, so I couldn't evaluate the quality of the writing. Secondhand copies are priced at absurd levels, up to five figures. The reviews of the single book that has any (HEALTHY HOLLY: EXERCISING IS FUN) discuss the author's illegal actions, not the texts of the stories themselves. They all rate it one star except for a two-sentence five-star review, which I think is pretty funny: "I bought 50 of these and finally my rooftop deck permit got approved. 10/10 would buy again."

I'm willing to believe Pugh originally wrote and published the series with good intentions. Yet apparently the temptation of leveraging her political career to promote and sell her work overwhelmed her. Note to self: "Never use official connections to pressure readers into buying books"—not that most of us are ever likely to face such a temptation on that scale.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Rampant Disinformation

Victims' rights lawyer Carrie A. Goldberg, author of the book, "Nobody's Victim: Fighting Psychos, Stalkers, Pervs, and Trolls", shared an article with TheTrichordist.com recently.

https://thetrichordist.com/2019/10/08/guest-post-by-cagoldberglaw-scared-as-hell-section-230-denies-access-to-justice-not-free-speech-protection-via-musictechpolicy/

It seems that American law protects Big Tech publishers of untruthful speech, even if it is harmful speech, doxxing, or something akin to revenge porn... as in the case she describes of a vengeful ex impersonating his former lover on an online dating site.

Writing for Australian audiences and the law firm Gilbert + Tobin, legal bloggers Alexander Ryan and Andrew Hii discuss deep fakery, and the reality that if a deep fake is used to defame a victim, the conventional defamation defense (that the damaging information is true) cannot be used.  It is a fascinating discussion of criminal deception and disinformation.

Lexology version:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=757d4839-4281-4d84-b7be-016daaf8c378

Original article:
https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/disinformation-takes-new-face-deepfakes-current-legal-landscape

In the USA, some legislators have introduced a bill, The Deep Fakes Report Act of 2019, to look into the growing problem of technology that can generate videos of people appearing to do things they never did, and recordings of people saying things they never said.

Lexology version:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5bb08f69-33ee-4e83-ab06-efce0ae20079

Wilmer Hale original version:
https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20190702-bipartisan-group-of-legislators-unveils-bill-to-address-threat-of-deepfake-videos

Meanwhile, we cannot believe our eyes or our ears.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  http://www.rowenacherry.com

"Bad Command" And The Perils of Petitions

If a petition has very few signatures, a reasonable observer might assume that not a lot of people agree with the petition.  Likewise, if an online petition has thousands of signatures, it suggests that the petition has tremendous support.

Apparently, if the petition is online, there may be other reasons for lack of support, or overwhelming support.

For instance, last evening, this writer was mildly inclined to sign a petition asking the new Congress to support copyright owners. How many times, though, does a mildly enthusiastic person keep going back to sign a petition (for the first and only time) when entering the first couple of letters of ones first name crashes ones computer, logs one out of all sites, and closes ones browser?

https://copyrightalliance.org/get-involved/add-your-voice/ 

I tried four times before giving up on my right to support copyright. Interestingly, it was the "firstname" block that was boobytrapped. If one started with ones zip code, nothing happened.   Apple called the issue a "Bad Command".

Imagine a dystopian world where one tries to vote, but if one votes in a way that ones internet provider or a sponsor of the site opposes, that vote would be called a bad command, and would be blocked.

Hacking democracy happens. Online polls and referenda have been manipulated.
http://theconversation.com/referendum-petition-hack-shows-even-democracy-can-be-trolled-61862

Previously, there's been news about tricky campaigns where people who are not eligible to lobby someone elses parliamentary representative (even one in another country) find ways to geek around the rules.

https://thetrichordist.com/2018/12/09/boaty-mcboatface-uses-fight-for-the-future-dialer-tool-to-lobby-rand-paul-on-hr-1695-fromscotland-music-technology-policy/

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul does not really need to worry about how someone in Scotland would like him to vote on copyright issues.   And European MEPs (apology for the tautology) should not be tricked into voting according to the wishes of someone with very busy fingers and geek skills who is domiciled in California, USA.

Even more shocking is this allegation about foreign political fund-raising at the expense of American taxpayers:

https://thetrichordist.com/2018/12/11/is-pirate-party-mep-coordinating-with-group-committing-criminal-charity-fraud/


However, there is another peril of petitions and surveys. The petition launchers and survey creators may sell your private information and your private opinions to unscrupulous others.

https://mic.com/articles/175333/want-to-save-money-heres-the-surprising-reason-why-you-should-never-sign-an-online-petition#.4MG54KBq7

One outfit that appears to purchase petition and survey results could be mylife.com.  Check it out. They display the most intimate results about individuals (which are not always accurate), and offer to suppress this "information" for a monthly fee. The foreign operatives of this site will ask dissatisfied customers not to contact their credit card providers. Be sure to disregard such requests.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry