(Photo: Airbnb)

Temporary apartment renting service Airbnb has had its share of tussles with New York law. In 2011, the city instituted an illegal hotels statute that makes it illegal for users to rent out their apartments for less than 29 days, effectively rendering Airbnb hosts subject to fines. Last September, the city council jacked up the fines that could be levied upon illegal hoteliers advertising their wares through Airbnb from $800 to $2,500.

Now, CNET reports that a New York administrative law judge has fined an Airbnb host $2,400 for breaking the illegal hotel law when he leased out part of his condo on the site, arguing that the unit "may only be used as private residences and may not be rented for transient, hotel, or motel purposes."

Airbnb attempted to come to the rescue of the host, Nigel Warren, and helped get his fine knocked down from $7,000 after zoning charges were dismissed. But even with Airbnb's crack team of experts at his side, Mr. Warren is still expected to pony up the $2,400.

"This decision runs contrary to the stated intention and the plain text of New York law, so obviously we are disappointed," Airbnb said in a statement provided to CNET. "But more importantly, this decision makes it even more critical that New York law be clarified to make sure regular New Yorkers can occasionally rent out their own homes."

CNET notes that this doesn't mean the city is planning to crack down on all Airbnb hosts, so maybe don't yank your listings just yet. Instead, NYC only investigates when someone files a complaint. For the sake of your bank account, you might want to make sure your landlord isn't a dick before listing your apartment.

(Photo: bioethics.net)

The Federal Trade Commission is looking to change regulatory lawsthat that protect children's privacy on the Internet. Although it's legal right now, a slew of apps and popular websites collect data and pictures from young users. In the most cringe-worthy example, pictures of children that were uploaded to a “get in the picture with Ronald McDonald” game in were kept by McDonald's in directories that were publicly available to anyone who wanted access to them. McDonald's tells the Times that they've now "blocked public access to several directories on the site."

The new laws say children’s websites would be required to obtain parents’ permission before tracking kids around the Web for advertising purposes.

But while government restrictions may help protect innocent children, it's hard not to feel that the responsibility (and the biggest hope for keeping kids safe) lies with their parents. After all, children don't only stick to apps directed to their demographic.

Instructing them in the basic--don’t give out your birthday, don’t put up any pictures of yourself, don’t talk to strangers, and don’t do anything you wouldn’t do if we weren't here--would go a long way.

Earlier this year, the Times covered what happens when kids find porn on the Internet. The article's conclusion was that no matter what parents can try to do, their kids are going to explore the endless web and it's up to the parents to explain what's right and wrong to do online.

The same rule for parenting should apply here. In today's article about the FTC's plan, the Times quotes a mother of two, who said:

“We are teaching our kids to ask, ‘What is the company getting from you and what are they going to do with that information?”

She's on the right track.

Unfortunately, when mom’s only password is “password” and dad keeps giving away his social security number to Nigerian princes, kids might have to teach themselves--or learn the hard way.

(Photo: ZDNet)

Gchat can be a welcome haven from the turmoil of the work day, a blinking beacon that serves as an important reminder of your humanity. And yet, the things you've typed into that little chat box without clicking the "off the record" button--the fights and breakups and conversations that basically amount to cybering? And all those emails you sent in college with thinly veiled references to drugs? It'd be embarrassing for anyone to read all that, let alone the Po Po.

Luckily for us, cops may finally need a warrant to dig into your inbox. Phew.

According to Ars Technica, a new bill that will be introduced into the Senate Judiciary Committee today would require a probable-cause warrant to access Gmail. Currently, because Gmail is stored on a remote server and not directly on a person's personal computer, law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to access it the same way they do to read your hard drive. They only require consent from the email service, Google. If it passes, this bill would make it much more difficult for cops to read through (and probably laugh at) your emails.

Writes Ars:

When Congress passed the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), a time when massive online storage of e-mail was essentially unimaginable, it was presumed that if you hadn’t actually bothered to download your e-mail, it could be considered "abandoned" after 180 days. By that logic, law enforcement would not need a warrant to go to the e-mail provider or ISP to get the messages that are older than 180 days....

If this [new] bill does pass, it would instantaneously provide significantly more privacy to everyone in America who sends e-mail, uses Facebook, Twitter, Google Docs, or communicates online in essentially any way.

If passed, the bill would be a win for privacy hawks everywhere. As an added bonus, it could save you the embarrassment of having to explain to cops why you sign all your emails "YOLO."

(flickr.com/crobj)

Deep web crawlers who have ever accidentally clicked on anything labeled "CP" may now breathe a sigh of relief: an appeals court in New York decided today in a vaguely disturbing ruling that simply viewing child pornography is not a crime.

According to MSNBC:

The decision rests on whether accessing and viewing something on the Internet is the same as possessing it, and whether possessing it means you had to procure it. In essence, the court said no to the first question and yes to the second.

We understand the importance of that distinction--after all, should someone really be thrown in jail for accidentally clicking on something disturbing on 4chan? But when applied to something as terrible as child pornography, where the rules are explicitly set up to protect the abuse of minors, it becomes a little bit more to fathom.

As Sam Biddle at Gizmodo put it, "Laws that deal with computers need to wrap themselves around how we actually use computers, not be snagged on the most literal technicalities. Unless we want our laws to start doing things like inadvertently permitting kiddie porn."

We look forward to seeing how Law and Order: SVU handles this bizarre decision.