Tased and Confused
All times eastern Making Money with Charles Payne The Evening Edit with Elizabeth Macdonald FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Witnesses and experts take stand at Karen Read's retrial for murder
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
39 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Shaq Signs $1.8 Million Check to End His Crypto Drama
Shaquille O'Neal can finally breathe a sigh of relief. The basketball legend turned businessman and TV personality has agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over his role in promoting the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX. While the payment closes a legal chapter for the former Laker, it also marks a turning point in how courts are treating celebrity endorsements in the volatile world of crypto, a space where stardom once offered both hype and cover. O'Neal is among the first big names to reach a settlement in the high-profile FTX case, which also names football legend Tom Brady, his ex-wife Gisele Bündchen, NBA superstar Steph Curry, tennis player Naomi Osaka, and Seinfeld creator Larry David. Some of the claims against these celebrities, who say they weren't aware of the risks, have already been dismissed. But O'Neal's decision to settle stands out. He was accused of promoting FTX to his fans and investors, appearing in a string of marketing campaigns. In return, the company allegedly sponsored his music festival venture, Shaq's Fun House. According to the lawsuit, O'Neal promoted the partnership through social media posts and videos. He was allegedly paid $750,000 for his endorsement. 'Plaintiffs seek class-wide relief from Mr. O'Neal, who was an alleged influencer and celebrity paid by FTX to present FTX to his followers and event attendees as a safe and legitimate alternative to other cryptocurrency exchanges,' states the court document (FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, Docket No. 1:23-md-03076, S.D. Fla. Jun 5, 2023). An initial settlement was reached last November. It was unveiled in May by the court, and on June 9, the final $1.8 million agreement was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Adam Moskowitz, the plaintiffs' attorney. O'Neal must pay the amount within 30 days. FTX, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Nov. 11, 2022, had become a crypto juggernaut thanks in part to its celebrity ambassadors. But behind the scenes, the platform was using customer assets as collateral to borrow funds that were funneled to its sister company, Alameda Research, for trading and investments. When the house of cards collapsed, both companies went under, sparking lawsuits against founder Sam Bankman-Fried, his inner circle, and the stars who endorsed the brand. O'Neal's settlement isn't just about resolving his personal liability. It's a wake-up call to celebrities who cashed in on the crypto boom without fully understanding, or disclosing, the risks. 'I don't understand it,' O'Neal told CNBC in 2021 about cryptocurrencies. 'So, I will probably stay away from it until I get a full understanding of what it is.' He added, 'From my experience, it is too good to be true.' Yet he didn't stay away. Since the FTX implosion, regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission have been cracking down on undisclosed paid crypto endorsements. The SEC now emphasizes 'fair disclosure' and 'financial literacy,' warning that fame is no longer a shield. The message to celebrities is unequivocal: if you promote it, you are now expected to 'own' it, even if the venture collapses. And this isn't Shaq's only crypto-related legal headache. Last November, he was ordered to pay $11 million to settle a separate lawsuit involving Astrals, a failed non-fungible tokens (NFT) project he co-founded with his son Myles O'Neal. (NFTs are digital collectibles that can be owned, sold, or traded online.) The project promised a metaverse experience where users would interact via NFT avatars. But after FTX's downfall, Shaq reportedly distanced himself from the venture, leaving investors to fend for themselves. Now, with $12.8 million in crypto settlements under his belt, O'Neal may think twice before lending his name to another crypto venture.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Appeals court grants Trump short-term win over Boasberg in immigration ruling
A U.S. appeals court agreed to pause a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to provide due process to hundreds of Venezuelan migrants deported from the U.S. to El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act in a near-term victory for the Trump administration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the Justice Department's request for an administrative stay, putting on hold a lower court order handed down last week by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Last Wednesday, Boasberg ruled that the migrants deported solely on the basis of the Alien Enemies Act immigration law did not have prior notice of their removals or the ability to challenge their removals in court, in a violation of due process. He ordered the Trump administration to provide migrants deported under the law the opportunity to seek habeas relief, and the opportunity to challenge their alleged gang member status that the administration had pointed to as the basis for their removal. Boasberg had given the Trump administration through Wednesday to submit to the court plans for how it would go about providing habeas relief to the plaintiffs in CECOT, the maximum security prison in El Salvador. This week, lawyers for the Trump administration filed an emergency motion to stay the ruling in both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday, one day before that plan was due, seeking additional time to respond to the underlying merits of Boasberg's ruling. Justice Department officials argued that Boasberg did not have jurisdiction in the case, as the migrants are detained in El Salvador, and said his order interfered "with the president's removal of dangerous criminal aliens from the United States." Boasberg's final order last week did not attempt to determine who had jurisdiction. Instead, he set the matter aside, and said the individuals could remain in custody at CECOT, so long as the government submitted plans to the court for how they would be provided a chance to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration still took umbrage with that ruling, which it blasted earlier this week in their appeal as "unprecedented, baseless and constitutionally offensive." "The district court's increasingly fantastical injunctions continue to threaten serious harm to the government's national-security and foreign-affairs interests," they told the circuit court. The court "correctly ruled that the United States lacks constructive custody over the aliens held at CECOT and therefore that this Court lacks jurisdiction over their habeas claims," attorneys for the Justice Department said in their motion. "That should have been the end of this case." That order sparked fierce backlash from senior Trump officials, who have blasted Bosaberg and other federal judges who have ruled in ways unfavorable to them as "activist judges." Boasberg, however, was the first federal judge to try to block Trump's attempt to use the law to summarily deport certain migrants to El Salvador earlier this year, putting him squarely in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. On March 15, he granted a temporary restraining order attempting to block the first wave of deportation flights to El Salvador, and ordered the administration to "immediately" return to the U.S. all planes that had already departed. That did not happen, however, and the planes landed hours later in El Salvador. In the months since, Boasberg attempted to hold various fact-finding hearings to determine who knew what, and when, about the flights. He later found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt of the court, citing the government's "willful disregard" for his March 15 emergency order, though those proceedings were later halted by a federal appeals court.
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Can You Legally Record Audio or Video on Your Security Camera? I Focus on These Rules
If you're thinking about installing a new security camera in your home, a legal question appears: Is it legal for you to record audio and video anywhere you want in your home? Are there limitations or the possibility of lawsuits from your neighbors? This is something I've thought about a lot as I've tested security cameras in all parts of my home for years. Owners must know when and where it's legal to record everything from their front yard and streets to friends, babysitters, and pet sitters. Breaking privacy laws could lead to fines, lawsuits and other huge headaches. I've gathered all the details below so you'll understand what to avoid and what's safe to do. Let's start with a key rule, the expectation of privacy. Read more: Want Better Home Security? Never Put Your Cameras in These Spots Public vs. private surveillance Common sense about privacy can keep you out of a lot of trouble. Lorex/Amazon First, let's talk about the most important rule when recording video (anywhere). The standard that the courts have widely adopted is called the "reasonable expectation of privacy" and it's very, very important. You can generally set up security cams in your home as you please, but you can't interfere with someone's reasonable expectation of privacy. In practice, that comes down to how people tend to use rooms. Surveilling living rooms, entryways, kitchens or dining rooms is fine because those rooms are more "public" spots used by everyone in the house and are generally highly visible. However, setting up a cam to record video in a bedroom, bathroom or changing room is usually considered illegal without explicit consent, even in your own home. People expect a higher level of privacy in these areas and the law agrees. Minor/dependent limitations also apply: Parents can monitor their baby's bedroom, for example. But when in doubt, apply the rule of a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you do need cams in more private areas, consider disabling them when guests are over. The expectation of privacy is even more important if neighbors are pointing security cameras at you. No one can film you without your permission on private property, like filming your backyard or through your windows. One vs. two-party consent Audio privacy laws are particularly strict if you want to save camera audio conversations. Luis Alvarez via Getty Now let's turn to the big rule in audio recording, which is your local consent laws. Because of the Federal Wiretap Act and similar legislation, states are divided into one-party and two-party/all-party consent laws. In a one-party consent state such as Colorado, Tennessee or Texas, one side of the conversation needs to give consent to be recorded, which makes it legal to record telephone calls you are part of and (in theory) two-way audio conversations you have through a camera. In two-party consent states such as California, Florida or Michigan, both or all sides need to give their consent to have their conservation recorded. It is never legal to record a conversation where no one is giving consent. This consent is usually a verbal affirmation at the beginning of a call or a separate acknowledgement that consent was given. Justia has a guide breaking down the rules by individual state where you can find more information. Four tips to record video in your home Video recording is legal in your home as long as you respect privacy. Lorex/Amazon Let's break down video capture, a primary goal of installing a security camera in your home. Today's cameras use motion detection and frequently have video storage options to automatically save video clips -- both to local storage and the cloud -- when they see people. These steps will help you know what to do. Step 1: Review your state laws Laws about surveillance can vary by state, so if you want to stay safe you need to start by looking up the laws in your own state. State websites, local law firms and others will often summarize these laws for you to save time. Here's a breakdown of California's law as an example. States may have specific laws about hiding security cameras, how you can use security camera recordings in court and if you need permits for specific kinds of security cameras. A few minutes of reading up can give you important parameters to follow. For example, the California law mentioned above has specific language about "intent to invade privacy" and intent to view "the body or undergarments" that can help clarify what's not allowed. Step 2: Follow the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' Don't record video in any area where people expect privacy. Keep recordings focused on common areas such as entryways, porches and primary rooms. Step 3: (For renters) Let the owner know about cameras Property owners broadly have the right to install security cameras on their private property, including inside homes that they own. They don't usually need a permit, either. If you aren't the property owner, the law gets less comfortable with you recording video. When renting, contact the owner of the property if you want to install a security camera and notify them, getting written permission if possible. Sometimes leases will have more specific information on who is in charge of security systems, while other leases have more leeway. Tenants usually have the right to install their own security cameras to watch over the personal space they're legally renting. But letting the owner know can precent future issues. Step 4: Notify guests about cameras, including short-term rentals If you have guests over, hire a nanny or have a friend staying over for a couple of weeks, let them know that you have security cameras, no matter where they are. It's polite and it avoids any chance you could be accused of hiding cameras and recording without consent. Important note: Other regulations can apply in certain circumstances. The best example is Airbnb, which in March 2024 banned all use of indoor security cameras (video doorbells, etc. should still be fine) by Airbnb hosts. Previously, Airbnb had allowed the use of indoor cams in some regions as long as guests were notified. The rules changed -- which is why it's important to look up the details if you aren't sure about the law. Four tips to record audio in your home Apps often offer ways to record or disable audio. Lorex/Amazon Audio recording is a different beast than video recording: It has more legal implications and is traditionally used often as evidence in courts. When audio is involved, people have extra protections. Our rules will help you stay within the bounds of the law. Step 1: Review your state laws (but even closer this time) Find out if your state is a one-party or two-party consent state and check if it has any specific language about recording audio, wiretapping and similar situations. Step 2: Exercise caution if your cam can record audio Camera apps often allow you to record audio -- if you have a Ring Protect plan, for example, you can usually record and download video and audio from a Ring doorbell, then keep it or share it with others. Eufy also gives you the option to record audio when a video is recorded. But recording audio without consent risks crossing an audio law red line, even if it's automatic. It's often up to users to go into apps and disable audio functions for legal safety. Even if a home cam theoretically saved incriminating audio, it might not be usable in court and could lead to countersuits or other problems. Step 3: Get or give consent for any recording If you really want to record audio, find a device that can do it and make sure people are giving consent to be recorded. We suggest getting permission from both sides of a conversation even in one-party consent states, just to stay safe and polite. That's how phone interviews are conducted, for example. Step 4: Avoid false pretenses when recording someone Federal law prohibits recording conversations with criminal or malicious intent and many state laws confirm that with similar wording. Avoid any accidental appearance of blackmail or similar scheming. That includes any effort to try to trick someone into having a certain conversation or saying certain words, or pretending to be someone you aren't while talking to another person. What about outdoor security cameras? Privacy laws apply to outdoor cams too, with a couple of extra considerations. Arlo/Amazon Outdoor security cameras are still on your property (or they should be) and they typically fall under the same laws as indoor cameras. As long as security cameras generally face public spots -- the front of your home, sidewalks and streets -- they fall well within the law. If you're the owner, you have the right to film your backyard and other parts of your property, too. However, you cannot film areas where other people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That means you cannot film a neighbor's backyard or angle a camera so that it can record through their windows. Many cameras have privacy zones and other tricks you can use to avoid even the appearance of spying on someone. The same rules for audio also apply to outdoor cameras. You'll need one-party or two-party consent to record conversations. Security companies skip that hassle by only allowing live audio. That's why you can talk through your video doorbell, for instance, but can't set it up to record conversations. Finally, if you are renting, make sure to stop by our guide on the best security devices and tips if you're living with roommates, which can create another set of headaches when people start encroaching on your personal space.
