With access comes responsibility. For more than a year, I have been stating that NCAA schools do not have a duty to social media monitor their student-athletes' password protected social media/digital content. Earlier this year, the NCAA stated loud and clear that its member schools do not have a blanket duty to monitor their student-athletes' public social networking accounts in the University of North Carolina Public Infractions Report.
The latest twist in the Penn State Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal proves once again that NCAA schools must be careful when drafting their student-athlete social media policies. According to a new CNN report, it appears that Penn State's Athletic Director Tim Curley, Vice President Gary Schultz, and President Graham Spanier discussed via email how to handle their knowledge that Jerry Sandusky may have sexually abused a child on Penn State's campus. The CNN report appears to indicate that according to emails it has obtained, Coach Joe Paterno was not in favor of reporting the information about an alleged sexual assault by Sandusky to the police.
According to the e-mails obtained by CNN, Spanier emailed Curley on February 27, 2001 and stated, "The only downside for us if the message isn't heard and acted upon, and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it". If this email is authenticated, it clearly demonstrates that with access/knowledge comes responsibility. Spanier appears to admit in the email that Penn State may have potential legal liability for intentionally not reporting Sandusky to the police.
These e-mails CNN allegedly obtained were written in 2001. Digital evidence from eleven years ago may be the smoking gun that demonstrates that Penn State knew about Sandusky but intentionally did nothing to stop Sandusky because it chose to protect its reputation instead of children who were preyed upon by Sandusky. This digital evidence appears to be extremely damaging to Penn State and may help plaintiff's lawyers successfully argue that Penn State should pay tens of millions of dollars for intentionally covering up the Sandusky matter. Therefore, why would any university want to create more opportunities for lawsuits by monitoring and archiving the digital content of their student-athletes or employees?
Unfortunately, some schools are listening to companies with names like UDiligence or Varsity Monitor. According to Deadspin.com, Varsity Monitor has multiple credibility issues and both Varsity Monitor and UDiligence appeared to lack any connection to college athletics or social media before their formation. What if a school finds out or has a strong reason to believe that their football superstar who is a leading candidate for the Heisman Trophy is engaging in illegal activity because of social media monitoring? What if the illegal activity harms a third party and the school did nothing to stop their star athlete because the school wanted the prestige of a Heisman Trophy winner or a national championship? The legal liability of the school may be tremendous.
The bottom line is that NCAA schools must create sensible social media policies that do not put them in a position that may create tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
To inform about the legal, business, privacy, cyber security, and public policy issues that confront those who utilize digital platforms.
Pages
▼
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Penn State Sandusky guilty verdict proves NCAA schools should not hire social media monitoring companies to spy on their student-athletes or employees
The Penn State sex scandal is the worst scandal that any NCAA athletic department has ever encountered. Late last night, a jury found Jerry Sandusky, the former defensive coordinator of Penn State's football team guilty of 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse.
Jerry Sandusky is by far the worst monster to have ever coached at an NCAA school. My heart goes out to all of Sandusky's victims. According to published media reports, it appears that Penn State may have known that Sandusky was a sexual predator since at least 1998 when he was initially investigated by Penn State Police. Unfortunately, at that time nothing was done to stop this predator from having access to Penn State facilities with young boys.
Since at least 2002, the Penn State athletic department knew about allegations that Sandusky may have raped a young boy at its athletic facilities but did nothing to report him to law enforcement or to stop him from having access to its facilities. Since it appears that the athletic department knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual abuse crimes on its campus it may have significant civil legal liability. Administrators who lied about their knowledge of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities when questioned by police may also have criminal legal liability. In addition to potentially having criminal legal liability for lying about their knowledge of Sandusky's then alleged criminal activities, Penn State and its employees may also have significant civil liability for Sandusky's on and off-campus activities since it appears that Penn State knew that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual crimes and did nothing to stop him.
If Penn State wasn't informed about Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse of young boys it would be very difficult to prove that Penn State and/or any of its employees should be held liable for not stopping these terrible activities. However, since it appears that Penn State coaches, athletic department members, and members of the university administration knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing major crimes on and off campus Penn State and some current and/or former employees may have significant legal liability.
The Virgina Tech case should have been a wake up call that NCAA schools should not require their student-athletes or employees to provide access to their password protected digital content and/or to turn over their social media usernames. Next, the lawsuit by the family of a University of Virginia lacrosse player who was murdered by another student-athlete should have been another wake up call that athletic departments must stop these practices. Now, the Penn State guilty verdict appears to prove that if a university and/or its employees want to avoid legal liability for the digital content of their student-athletes or employees they must not require students or employees to provide access to their password protected personal digital content.
On November 15, 2011, I stated, if Penn State was aware of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities and failed to stop him the school may have major legal liability issues to defend against. Since it appears that Penn State knew about Sandusky's criminal behavior the economic cost of this matter to Penn State may be north of $100 million dollars due to court costs, litigation expenses, attorney fees, investigation costs, judgements, settlements, reputation costs, etc... It is premature to determine how much of these costs the school's insurance companies will pay but there is already litigation regarding the matter.
The Penn State sex scandal once again proves that NCAA schools need to ensure that their social media policies do not create unintended legal liability. Compliance personnel, coaches, or university employees who require their student-athletes or employees to turn over their social media usernames, passwords, or to download social media monitoring software, or to use any other unethical or illegal method to obtain access to their students' or employees' personal password protected digital content may create millions of dollars of legal liability for their schools and/or themselves.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Jerry Sandusky is by far the worst monster to have ever coached at an NCAA school. My heart goes out to all of Sandusky's victims. According to published media reports, it appears that Penn State may have known that Sandusky was a sexual predator since at least 1998 when he was initially investigated by Penn State Police. Unfortunately, at that time nothing was done to stop this predator from having access to Penn State facilities with young boys.
Since at least 2002, the Penn State athletic department knew about allegations that Sandusky may have raped a young boy at its athletic facilities but did nothing to report him to law enforcement or to stop him from having access to its facilities. Since it appears that the athletic department knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual abuse crimes on its campus it may have significant civil legal liability. Administrators who lied about their knowledge of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities when questioned by police may also have criminal legal liability. In addition to potentially having criminal legal liability for lying about their knowledge of Sandusky's then alleged criminal activities, Penn State and its employees may also have significant civil liability for Sandusky's on and off-campus activities since it appears that Penn State knew that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual crimes and did nothing to stop him.
If Penn State wasn't informed about Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse of young boys it would be very difficult to prove that Penn State and/or any of its employees should be held liable for not stopping these terrible activities. However, since it appears that Penn State coaches, athletic department members, and members of the university administration knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing major crimes on and off campus Penn State and some current and/or former employees may have significant legal liability.
The Virgina Tech case should have been a wake up call that NCAA schools should not require their student-athletes or employees to provide access to their password protected digital content and/or to turn over their social media usernames. Next, the lawsuit by the family of a University of Virginia lacrosse player who was murdered by another student-athlete should have been another wake up call that athletic departments must stop these practices. Now, the Penn State guilty verdict appears to prove that if a university and/or its employees want to avoid legal liability for the digital content of their student-athletes or employees they must not require students or employees to provide access to their password protected personal digital content.
On November 15, 2011, I stated, if Penn State was aware of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities and failed to stop him the school may have major legal liability issues to defend against. Since it appears that Penn State knew about Sandusky's criminal behavior the economic cost of this matter to Penn State may be north of $100 million dollars due to court costs, litigation expenses, attorney fees, investigation costs, judgements, settlements, reputation costs, etc... It is premature to determine how much of these costs the school's insurance companies will pay but there is already litigation regarding the matter.
The Penn State sex scandal once again proves that NCAA schools need to ensure that their social media policies do not create unintended legal liability. Compliance personnel, coaches, or university employees who require their student-athletes or employees to turn over their social media usernames, passwords, or to download social media monitoring software, or to use any other unethical or illegal method to obtain access to their students' or employees' personal password protected digital content may create millions of dollars of legal liability for their schools and/or themselves.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Maryland's Social Media Judicial Ethics Opinion
Since 2010, Maryland has taken the lead in social media law and compliance. In 2010, Maryland became the first state to draft (Full Disclosure: I worked with the Maryland Board of Elections to draft the regulations) social media election regulations. These regulations treat state office digital campaign materials in the same manner as traditional campaign materials and do not put any extra burdens on candidates and their campaigns.
In 2011, the judiciary flexed its social media wings in Griffin v. State of Maryland, when it stated that social media evidence must be properly authenticated when introduced during trial. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to create social media privacy legislation that protects both employers and employees (Full Disclosure: I worked with multiple state lawmakers to pass this legislation). This legislation was groundbreaking and has been used as a template by at least 15 other states and multiple members of Congress.
On June 12, 2012, the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee published an opinion providing guidance regarding the judiciary's use of social media. The main point of the decision is that, "a judge must recognize the use of social media networking sites may implicate several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and, therefore, proceed cautiously."
The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's opinion that prohibited judges from adding lawyers who may appear before them as "Facebook Friends" demonstrated a lack of understanding of social media. If judges can be friends in the real world and join the same social clubs as lawyers who appear before them they should be able to be Facebook Friends. California, New York, Kentucky, Ohio and South Carolina have taken a different position than Florida and their rules appear to generally demonstrate a better understanding of how online relationships are analogous to real world relationships.
The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee appears to have taken a position that generally follows California, New York, Kentucky, Ohio, and South Carolina. The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee stated "the mere fact of a social connection does not create a conflict" while referring to online social media connections. The bottom line is that Maryland once again has demonstrated an understanding of how social media intersects with the law.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In 2011, the judiciary flexed its social media wings in Griffin v. State of Maryland, when it stated that social media evidence must be properly authenticated when introduced during trial. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to create social media privacy legislation that protects both employers and employees (Full Disclosure: I worked with multiple state lawmakers to pass this legislation). This legislation was groundbreaking and has been used as a template by at least 15 other states and multiple members of Congress.
On June 12, 2012, the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee published an opinion providing guidance regarding the judiciary's use of social media. The main point of the decision is that, "a judge must recognize the use of social media networking sites may implicate several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and, therefore, proceed cautiously."
The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's opinion that prohibited judges from adding lawyers who may appear before them as "Facebook Friends" demonstrated a lack of understanding of social media. If judges can be friends in the real world and join the same social clubs as lawyers who appear before them they should be able to be Facebook Friends. California, New York, Kentucky, Ohio and South Carolina have taken a different position than Florida and their rules appear to generally demonstrate a better understanding of how online relationships are analogous to real world relationships.
The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee appears to have taken a position that generally follows California, New York, Kentucky, Ohio, and South Carolina. The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee stated "the mere fact of a social connection does not create a conflict" while referring to online social media connections. The bottom line is that Maryland once again has demonstrated an understanding of how social media intersects with the law.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, June 15, 2012
NCAA's New Social Media Recruiting Policy
The NCAA has updated its social media recruiting policy. The policy deregulates the number of texts, calls, and other forms of digital communication that coaches may have with potential recruits after they finish their sophomore year in high school.
While the previous policy was instituted with good intentions, it was very difficult to enforce and not flexible enough to adapt to the changing ways we communicate and interact. Unfortunately, there are some self-anointed sports social media consulstants who may try to convince schools that they understand social media, compliance, and the law and that schools should hire them to advise them on the NCAA's new policy. As I have written before, schools must perform due diligence on hiring companies who have incorrectly predicted future NCAA social media policy changes because some of these companies have been caught intentionally misrepresenting their credentials and lying to NCAA schools in order to obtain their business.
While coaches may now have the opportunity to send an unlimited number of digital messages to recruits, it would be wise not to over message and aggravate a high school student and/or his family. While social media and other forms of technology may help communicate with recruits, meeting a prospective future student-athlete face to face, shaking his hand, looking him in the eyes, and treating him with respect may still be the most productive way to determine if that person is a good fit for your program.
The bottom line is that schools should tread carefully in the social media space to avoid potential legal liability.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
While the previous policy was instituted with good intentions, it was very difficult to enforce and not flexible enough to adapt to the changing ways we communicate and interact. Unfortunately, there are some self-anointed sports social media consulstants who may try to convince schools that they understand social media, compliance, and the law and that schools should hire them to advise them on the NCAA's new policy. As I have written before, schools must perform due diligence on hiring companies who have incorrectly predicted future NCAA social media policy changes because some of these companies have been caught intentionally misrepresenting their credentials and lying to NCAA schools in order to obtain their business.
While coaches may now have the opportunity to send an unlimited number of digital messages to recruits, it would be wise not to over message and aggravate a high school student and/or his family. While social media and other forms of technology may help communicate with recruits, meeting a prospective future student-athlete face to face, shaking his hand, looking him in the eyes, and treating him with respect may still be the most productive way to determine if that person is a good fit for your program.
The bottom line is that schools should tread carefully in the social media space to avoid potential legal liability.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Did Facebook mislead investors regarding its user statistics in its S-1 Registration Statement?
Does Facebook have 900 million + users as its S-1 Registration Statement states as of March 31, 2012? Or, does Facebook have 900 million + monthly open accounts? Whether Facebook has 900 million + users or 526 million users (daily users as of March 31, 2012 as reported in the S-1), these are still massive numbers that have tremendous monetization opportunities.
Investors may want a more accurate answer regarding Facebook's number of users in light of police assertions that alleged Canadian killer Luke Magnotta had 70 different Facebook accounts under different names. Do most people have multiple Facebook accounts? Was Luke Magnotta's 70 Facebook accounts an anomaly among Facebook's users or do a significant number of Facebook's users have multiple accounts?
I don't know how many users vs. how many open accounts Facebook has and it appears that Facebook may not be able to accurately measure this distinction on its platform. Facebook estimates “false or duplicate accounts may have represented approximately 5-6%” of its monthly active users as of the end of 2011. Is this figure correct? Instead of stating in its S-1 that it has 900 million + monthly active users it may have been more accurate for Facebook to state that it has 900 million + monthly open accounts since it appears easy for anyone to have multiple accounts.
I don't want to speculate on whether Facebook made any material misrepresentations in its S-1 Registration Statement regarding its user statistics. Should Facebook along with other digital platforms focus on the number of monthly open accounts (MOA's) instead of the number of monthly active users (MAU's) since Luke Magnotta has demonstrated how easy it is to open multiple Facebook accounts? If an alleged killer has 70+ Facebook accounts how many accounts does the average Facebook user have? Is a more accurate definition of actively engaged unique digital platform users needed?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Investors may want a more accurate answer regarding Facebook's number of users in light of police assertions that alleged Canadian killer Luke Magnotta had 70 different Facebook accounts under different names. Do most people have multiple Facebook accounts? Was Luke Magnotta's 70 Facebook accounts an anomaly among Facebook's users or do a significant number of Facebook's users have multiple accounts?
I don't know how many users vs. how many open accounts Facebook has and it appears that Facebook may not be able to accurately measure this distinction on its platform. Facebook estimates “false or duplicate accounts may have represented approximately 5-6%” of its monthly active users as of the end of 2011. Is this figure correct? Instead of stating in its S-1 that it has 900 million + monthly active users it may have been more accurate for Facebook to state that it has 900 million + monthly open accounts since it appears easy for anyone to have multiple accounts.
I don't want to speculate on whether Facebook made any material misrepresentations in its S-1 Registration Statement regarding its user statistics. Should Facebook along with other digital platforms focus on the number of monthly open accounts (MOA's) instead of the number of monthly active users (MAU's) since Luke Magnotta has demonstrated how easy it is to open multiple Facebook accounts? If an alleged killer has 70+ Facebook accounts how many accounts does the average Facebook user have? Is a more accurate definition of actively engaged unique digital platform users needed?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Baltimore Sun editorial about Morgan State student's alleged cannabalism demonstrates it does not understand social media public policy
The Baltimore Sun was the paper I grew up reading and it is the source I utilize to see what is going on in my hometown. The recent allegations that Morgan State student Alexander Kinyua killed and ate pieces of his roommate in his off-campus apartment has made headlines all over the world.
This incident is a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to Mr. Kinyua's victims and their families. Unfortunately, the Baltimore Sun editorial page has demonstrated that it does not understand social media public policy when it wrote about this incident on June 5, 2012. It asked the question, "Was anyone at the university looking at Mr. Kinyua's Facebook page" and appeared to infer that the university may have a duty to review their students' social media accounts.
As long as a school does not require its students to Facebook Friend teachers and/or university officials and/or agents of the school, and/or require students to download social media monitoring software onto their personal accounts/electronic devices, schools do not have a duty to monitor their students' social media accounts. In general, schools do not have a duty to monitor their students off campus in the real world so schools should not create a duty to monitor their students off campus in the digital world.
Does the Baltimore Sun advocate our schools requiring students to register their usernames with their academic institutions? China requires their social media users to register their usernames through their microblog identification program so the government can track what everyone is saying and doing online. While that policy may work in China, we have a Constitution and a long history of protecting anonymous free speech.
With access comes responsibility. If our public schools become the social media police, plaintiffs may be able to successfully argue that schools have a duty to social media monitor their students' personal digital content. Therefore, before the Baltimore Sun makes any future comments relating to social media public policy it should be well versed in the ramifications of what it may be advocating.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
This incident is a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to Mr. Kinyua's victims and their families. Unfortunately, the Baltimore Sun editorial page has demonstrated that it does not understand social media public policy when it wrote about this incident on June 5, 2012. It asked the question, "Was anyone at the university looking at Mr. Kinyua's Facebook page" and appeared to infer that the university may have a duty to review their students' social media accounts.
As long as a school does not require its students to Facebook Friend teachers and/or university officials and/or agents of the school, and/or require students to download social media monitoring software onto their personal accounts/electronic devices, schools do not have a duty to monitor their students' social media accounts. In general, schools do not have a duty to monitor their students off campus in the real world so schools should not create a duty to monitor their students off campus in the digital world.
Does the Baltimore Sun advocate our schools requiring students to register their usernames with their academic institutions? China requires their social media users to register their usernames through their microblog identification program so the government can track what everyone is saying and doing online. While that policy may work in China, we have a Constitution and a long history of protecting anonymous free speech.
With access comes responsibility. If our public schools become the social media police, plaintiffs may be able to successfully argue that schools have a duty to social media monitor their students' personal digital content. Therefore, before the Baltimore Sun makes any future comments relating to social media public policy it should be well versed in the ramifications of what it may be advocating.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.