When it comes to matters of the heart, we try to be as sensitive as possible, but how sensitive can you be when you don't know the facts - or worse: the truth? AED's latest infographic sets the record straight, by bringing to light what we think we know about sudden cardiac arrest. The truth is: it isn't so simple, and our wild misconceptions could mean life or death.

© 2012 AED.com

The rising popularity of social networking sites, Facebook and Twitter among them, has meant that more personal and potentially private information is being shared over the internet than ever before. The influx of data posted, much of it in the public domain, has raised important privacy and free speech considerations for users. How posted information can be used by the social networking company is one important consideration. Whether data can be collected or searched by the government is another.  Given the current climate of the Internet’s intersection with individual rights, the burden of serving as intermediary between the public and the government falls on the current and future attorneys and legal assistants of America.  Individuals are granted many rights, but at times, they may not know whether they understand the full implications of those rights or whether or not they are being violated.  This allows an opportunity for law professionals to step in and mediate.  Professionals holding a graduate law or paralegal degree are therefore more hotly in demand.  And as public concerns about sharing identifying information online continue to arise, an intermediary that can speak to both the public and the government will become incredibly necessary.

Many social networking users rely on constitutional protections of privacy and free speech in sharing information online, but this is not always justified. The United States Constitution guarantees citizens security against government intrusions into personal affairs through the 4th amendment, and protects citizens’ rights to speak freely on most any topic through the 1st amendment. How these amendments apply to information that is shared online is still very much a developing area of law. It is also important to keep in mind that the Constitution only protects citizens from government actions—not from actions that come from private individuals or independent corporations.

Recent 4th amendment case law pertaining to social networking and other internet communications tends to hold that the government can monitor or search the contents of profile pages, text message histories, or e-mail communications so long as there are “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that activity happening online is either (a) in violation of a stated policy; or (b) for the furtherance of some crime. Most of the time, the government can only rely on the 4th amendment when it acts as an employer. Those who work for public universities or whose positions are funded through grant money from government sources are usually considered government employees.

Recent law out of California suggests that the government’s terrain may be expanding. At the end of 2011, the governor of that state vetoed a bill that would have made it illegal for police to search through the cell phones of suspects under arrest. This means that, at least in California, someone arrested for driving with a suspended license, say, may suddenly find their e-mail messages, Facebook updates, and tweets—anything accessible through a smartphone—lawfully in the hands of police, even though in most cases this information has nothing to do with the original arrest.

A March 2012 Wired article also raised eyebrows when reporting that the National Security Administration may be planning to soon collect all internet traffic, including social networking data, in an attempt to monitor “suspicious practices.” Whether this sort of mass information collection can be squared with either the 1st or 4th amendments has yet to be challenged.

Most legislative efforts to address social networking privacy and freedom of speech rights have come at the state level, and do not concern overarching constitutional applications.  Some laws, like one proposed in California, would force social networking operators to switch their default settings from public to private. Users who want to share more robustly would have to affirmatively opt in. Others are more nuanced, like a Minnesota House bill designed to prohibit employers from requiring applicants to disclose their social networking passwords.

The legislative process is slow, and most of the time lawmakers can only respond to problems once they have arisen. It is important for the users of Facebook, Twitter, and other similar sites to understand the risks and learn about ways of protecting their information before sharing it.

One place to start is by understanding social networks’ privacy policies and data use agreements. If networks are tracking user behavior online, if they claim ownership of profile information, or if they reserve the right to use photos for commercial purposes—all of this should be known upfront.  Facebook’s 2007 debacle with the Beacon tracking software is just one example of the ways in which social networks can run afoul of user expectations. The Beacon program kept track of what Facebook users did online, whether in the networking application or on the web at large, and reported this data back to Facebook.
Users should also exercise general caution with the information they choose to post online. As noted by St. Augustine’s College in North Carolina, profile information and conversations shared online often reflect on the user personally. “If you are on Facebook talking about your drug use, drinking, partying or dating/marital relationship drama, you should understand that does not reflect professionalism or portray you as a person who knows the value of discretion,” the college says on its website. “As Americans we have a right to freedom of speech; however that does not mean you are excluded from the repercussions that may come from your free speech. If you hate your job or your boss, vent to a trusted friend or your spouse, do not post it on your public Twitter or Facebook page.”

I heard about pumpkin carving, but a watermelon carving? I didn't even know that was possible. Well apparently it is. I just found one of the most awesome "watermelon carving" I have ever seen. I mean the details are so awesome. Its cool, weird and funny at the same time!

I stole this from SocialHype, which I also own, lol stealing from myself! Either way - I saw this crazy video that had me flinch. It was of a hawk eating a pigeon alive in public, in-front of people, looking like a major city with not a care in the world. At one point a man came up to the hawk and posed for the picture and he did nothing but commence eating. I know this is nature and it has a food chain but DAMN! nature is so barbaric!

she just freaked me out!