Wishing everyone a Happy and Healthy Thanksgiving! Before leaving the office for the Thanksgiving Holiday, I noticed that Twitter has made a troubling announcement about its privacy practices moving forward for its iOS and Andoid users. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Twitter
is now collecting information about the apps installed on users’
devices in order to better target and tailor advertising and other
content to them."
Twitter announced, "[t]o help build a more personal Twitter experience for you, we are
collecting and occasionally updating the list of apps installed on your
mobile device so we can deliver tailored content that you might be
interested in."
Mashable has reported that, "[o]nce the update goes live, users are automatically opted-in to the tracking,
though Twitter will notify users within the app once it starts and you
can opt out at any time. Twitter notes that it is only tracking a list
of the apps users have downloaded and is not accessing any data within
those apps."
In general, most digital and social media platforms are not built with privacy by design in mind. For example, Facebook and Google are notorious for their very troubling privacy policies and practices which demonstrate that user privacy is an afterthought for these companies.
It is none of Twitter's business what apps I have uploaded on my mobile device. Period. End of story. Twitter has a right to monitor the apps I have connected to their platform; however, it has no right whatsoever to automatically know what apps I have downloaded onto my mobile device just because I have downloaded its app. Under no circumstances should this be opt-out. This is a very troubling issue that may lead more apps to do the same thing.
During the past couple of years, the FTC has published multiple reports on the troubling privacy practices of some mobile apps and ecosystems. Does Twitter even have the legal right to automatically opt-in users for this program? Since this was announced right before Thanksgiving, it leads me to believe that Twitter may be trying to bury this troubling matter right before a holiday weekend. Will the FTC soon open an investigation into this issue?
The bottom line is that Twitter and other digital companies should make their defaults opt-in. Opt-out defaults are a threat to personal privacy and safety. I am fully aware of the corporate monetary reasons for automatic opt-in. Wall Street has been disappointed with Twitter's revenue performance and recently punished its stock so this automatic opt-in to the App Graph may be an attempt to increase the corporate bottom line.
If Twitter and other social/digital media companies such as Facebook and Google want me to trust them with my personal and/or corporate data they need to make privacy a priority and not an afterthought.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Monday, November 24, 2014
Supreme Court To Decide Groundbreaking Social Media Speech Case
In general, it takes the Supreme Court years to address an issue and by the time a matter is resolved the technology utilized in the case may be obsolete. For example, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled on a sexting and workplace privacy case (City of Ontario, California et al v. Quon) that began in 2002. By 2010, many employers had switched from providing pagers to smartphones to communicate with some of their employees. While technology had greatly changed during those 8 years, the underlying issues litigated were and still are very relevant today.
A new case before the U.S. Supreme Court may determine when does a social media threat cross the line and violate the law. According to The Washington Post, the court will decide "whether violent images and threatening language posted on Facebook and other social media constitute a true threat to others or simply [the] protected rants..."
The basic facts of the case are that a man was sentenced to approximately 4 years in prison (and served the sentence) for posting allegedly disturbing messages on Facebook about his estranged wife, co-workers, and law enforcement. It appears that some of the people who viewed the man's Facebook messages were concerned for their personal safety and/or the safety of others so the appropriate authorities were made aware of the situation which led to the matter ending up in court.
With more and more communications occurring online, this case has the potential to radically change how we utilize and communicate as a society. This case also may change how the law views First Amendment protections in the Digital Age.
The Supreme Court needs to strike the right balance between protecting our First Amendment rights and public safety. What should the test be when determining whether social media speech violates the law? Should the test be how a reasonable person may view the postings or should the test be whether a person has the intent to follow through with the online threats?
My hope is that Supreme Court creates a framework that properly weighs First Amendment rights with public safety that may be easily applied to similar situations in the future. While this case may be the first major social media freedom of speech matter that is decided by the high court, I doubt it will be the last.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
A new case before the U.S. Supreme Court may determine when does a social media threat cross the line and violate the law. According to The Washington Post, the court will decide "whether violent images and threatening language posted on Facebook and other social media constitute a true threat to others or simply [the] protected rants..."
The basic facts of the case are that a man was sentenced to approximately 4 years in prison (and served the sentence) for posting allegedly disturbing messages on Facebook about his estranged wife, co-workers, and law enforcement. It appears that some of the people who viewed the man's Facebook messages were concerned for their personal safety and/or the safety of others so the appropriate authorities were made aware of the situation which led to the matter ending up in court.
With more and more communications occurring online, this case has the potential to radically change how we utilize and communicate as a society. This case also may change how the law views First Amendment protections in the Digital Age.
The Supreme Court needs to strike the right balance between protecting our First Amendment rights and public safety. What should the test be when determining whether social media speech violates the law? Should the test be how a reasonable person may view the postings or should the test be whether a person has the intent to follow through with the online threats?
My hope is that Supreme Court creates a framework that properly weighs First Amendment rights with public safety that may be easily applied to similar situations in the future. While this case may be the first major social media freedom of speech matter that is decided by the high court, I doubt it will be the last.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Britain Jails First Revenge Porn Perp
According to The Guardian, the UK has jailed its first revenge porn perpetrator. Luke King, 21 has been jailed for posting revenge porn online. He was given a 12-week sentence after pleading guilty to
online harassment.
It appears that Mr. King had published naked photos of a woman on WhatsApp earlier this year after threatening her. On October 13, 2014, I discussed that the UK was set to criminalize revenge porn because it is a growing problem not only in the UK but also around the world.
While a 12-week sentence may not sound like much for harassing someone online, it may make someone think twice before posting compromising photos of others in the future. It is too soon to speculate whether the UK's new revenge porn law is a strong enough deterrence.
The law is constantly trying to catch up with technology so it doesn't surprise me that this may be the first case in the UK where someone was jailed for uploading revenge porn. A major challenge with revenge porn is the likelihood of needing to play a game of whack a mole to remove it from the Internet. Once content is posted online it is extremely difficult for it to be permanently removed.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
It appears that Mr. King had published naked photos of a woman on WhatsApp earlier this year after threatening her. On October 13, 2014, I discussed that the UK was set to criminalize revenge porn because it is a growing problem not only in the UK but also around the world.
While a 12-week sentence may not sound like much for harassing someone online, it may make someone think twice before posting compromising photos of others in the future. It is too soon to speculate whether the UK's new revenge porn law is a strong enough deterrence.
The law is constantly trying to catch up with technology so it doesn't surprise me that this may be the first case in the UK where someone was jailed for uploading revenge porn. A major challenge with revenge porn is the likelihood of needing to play a game of whack a mole to remove it from the Internet. Once content is posted online it is extremely difficult for it to be permanently removed.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)