Michigan has joined the growing list of states that have banned schools from requiring their student-athletes to register and/or provide access to their personal email/social media credentials and content. Michigan joins Delaware, California, and New Jersey in banning NCAA schools from requiring their students to verify their personal digital accounts in order to apply or attend school, keep their scholarships, or participate in intercollegiate athletics.
Michigan's legislation is the most comprehensive in the country because it also bans elementary, middle, and high schools from also requiring their students to turn over their personal digital account information. In a nutshell, the new law generally bans all schools from requesting their students provide them access to their personal social media/digital media usernames, passwords and/or content. This policy affirms that the state of Michigan will not allow its schools to act like China who is requiring its citizens to register their personal digital accounts so the government may "monitor" everything their citizens do online.
Michigan's legislation may save Michigan schools tens of millions of dollars per year that may have been utilized to contract with companies that offer cyberstalking services to track the digital activities of students, their families, and friends. The companies that sell cyberstalking software to schools use terms like, "monitoring", "educating", and "leading" when describing their services, and/or companies. In addition, if you perform due diligence on the founders of the companies that offer these so called "monitoring" or "educating" services you may notice they have no verifiable professional credentials that demonstrate that any sports (college, amateur, or professional) organization should engage them for social media or education related services.
Some of these companies are also stating that they support social media privacy legislation which if true means they support a ban on their cyberstalking services. In order for any social media "monitoring" (cyberstalking) software to properly work it needs a student to verify his personal digital credentials. Absent student verification these services will not work.
Any public school that engages a firm to "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may in the near future receive a letter from their state's attorney general, the U.S. Department Education, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, or a law firm regarding their practices. Schools that "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may soon encounter steep fines, lawsuits, or a loss of education funding that may amount to tens of millions of dollars.
The bottom line is that public schools that engage self-described "social media experts"/"social media education & monitoring services"/"social media protectors of reputation" may create tremendous personal safety and privacy problems for their student-athletes, and massive legal liability issues for their institutions and taxpayers.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
(Full Disclosure: I advised Michigan Rep. Arc Nesbitt's office on HB 5523)
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
UK To Revise Social Media Speech Prosecution Guidelines
The UK recently announced that it would revise its prosecution guidelines to make it more difficult to bring legal action against those who create offensive posts online. This announcement is welcome news for the freedom of speech.
During the past couple of years, there has been several high profile prosecutions of people making racist or insensitive comments to others online. While these comments may be offensive, racist, or distasteful, in general they would not have been prosecuted if they occurred in the United States and were directed towards U.S. citizens living in the U.S. at the time the comments were created.
The United States is the greatest protector of free speech. In the United States, the general test for whether free speech crosses the line for criminal prosecution is whether the content is directed at inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
The UK's Crown Prosecution Service has released its interim social media prosecution guidelines and they can be found here. Those who are interested in making public comments about the interim guidelines may do so until March 13, 2013.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
During the past couple of years, there has been several high profile prosecutions of people making racist or insensitive comments to others online. While these comments may be offensive, racist, or distasteful, in general they would not have been prosecuted if they occurred in the United States and were directed towards U.S. citizens living in the U.S. at the time the comments were created.
The United States is the greatest protector of free speech. In the United States, the general test for whether free speech crosses the line for criminal prosecution is whether the content is directed at inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
The UK's Crown Prosecution Service has released its interim social media prosecution guidelines and they can be found here. Those who are interested in making public comments about the interim guidelines may do so until March 13, 2013.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
China's Internet Policy Should Not Be Followed By NCAA Athletic Departments
China is a communist country and enacts laws that are designed to keep its political system intact. Many countries enact legislation that is designed to keep the power status quo.
The United States' First Amendment provides its citizens the strongest freedom of speech protections available in the world. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Even though our First Amendment rights have some limitations, our ability to be able to be anonymous when speaking is well grounded in our history. China recently enacted legislation that strips its citizens of these rights online. While this law may be acceptable in China it has no place in the United States.
Unfortunately, some NCAA schools are following China's lead and believe it is legal to require its student-athletes to register their digital usernames and/or passwords and/or download cyberstalking software onto their personal accounts and electronic devices to keep their scholarships and/or participate in intercollegiate activities.
There is no valid reason for any public academic institution to require their students to provide their social media credentials to play intercollegiate sports. These types of policies have no place in the United States. At least 4 states have recently enacted legislation to ban this activity and Congress has introduced a ban on this practice.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
The United States' First Amendment provides its citizens the strongest freedom of speech protections available in the world. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Even though our First Amendment rights have some limitations, our ability to be able to be anonymous when speaking is well grounded in our history. China recently enacted legislation that strips its citizens of these rights online. While this law may be acceptable in China it has no place in the United States.
Unfortunately, some NCAA schools are following China's lead and believe it is legal to require its student-athletes to register their digital usernames and/or passwords and/or download cyberstalking software onto their personal accounts and electronic devices to keep their scholarships and/or participate in intercollegiate activities.
There is no valid reason for any public academic institution to require their students to provide their social media credentials to play intercollegiate sports. These types of policies have no place in the United States. At least 4 states have recently enacted legislation to ban this activity and Congress has introduced a ban on this practice.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Instagram, Facebook, and Social Media Terms and Conditions
Instagram was sold to Facebook earlier this year for $1 billion dollars. Facebook didn't buy Instagram to make its founders wealthy, it bought Instagram to monetize its users' content. Facebook expects to monetize Instagram in the same manner it is making money off of its users' content. This is why Facebook changed Instagram's terms and conditions last week.
Immediately after Instagram updated it terms and conditions, its users became very angry. Despite, Instagram's claim otherwise, its new terms of service greatly expanded its rights to utilize its users' content and unlike Facebook's terms and conditions, Instagram appeared to provide itself in perpetuity the right to monetize its users' content even after a user deleted his account.
Facebook and Instagram provide services that enable people and brands to interact with each other. In return for using their platforms, Facebook and Instagram have a right to utilize the information uploaded to make money off of the intellectual property contained on their websites. To better understand this one should review Facebook's terms and conditions that states, "you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook."
However, Facebook clearly states, "This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. Interestingly, it did not appear that Instagram included this sentence in their proposed updated terms and conditions.
Should Instagram's users be surprised at its decision to push the envelope on monetizing its users' content? Since Facebook owns Instagram, is Facebook using Instagram as a testing ground to determine how far they can go with monetizing their users' content before their users revolt? I discussed these issues with Bloomberg Television at the height of this news cycle: The complete fallout from this matter is still yet to be determined. Even though there is a new report that states that Instagram has lost approximately 25% of its daily active users since its announcement that it would change its terms and conditions, it is too soon to speculate if the updated terms and conditions is the main factor. It may be advisable to read the terms and conditions of every digital platform utilized so you don't become a Human Centipad.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Immediately after Instagram updated it terms and conditions, its users became very angry. Despite, Instagram's claim otherwise, its new terms of service greatly expanded its rights to utilize its users' content and unlike Facebook's terms and conditions, Instagram appeared to provide itself in perpetuity the right to monetize its users' content even after a user deleted his account.
Facebook and Instagram provide services that enable people and brands to interact with each other. In return for using their platforms, Facebook and Instagram have a right to utilize the information uploaded to make money off of the intellectual property contained on their websites. To better understand this one should review Facebook's terms and conditions that states, "you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook."
However, Facebook clearly states, "This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. Interestingly, it did not appear that Instagram included this sentence in their proposed updated terms and conditions.
Should Instagram's users be surprised at its decision to push the envelope on monetizing its users' content? Since Facebook owns Instagram, is Facebook using Instagram as a testing ground to determine how far they can go with monetizing their users' content before their users revolt? I discussed these issues with Bloomberg Television at the height of this news cycle: The complete fallout from this matter is still yet to be determined. Even though there is a new report that states that Instagram has lost approximately 25% of its daily active users since its announcement that it would change its terms and conditions, it is too soon to speculate if the updated terms and conditions is the main factor. It may be advisable to read the terms and conditions of every digital platform utilized so you don't become a Human Centipad.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Should Facebook Be Held Accountable For Allegedly Hosting Ads For Counterfeit Merchandise?
The Digital Age and now the Social Media Age has had a significant effect on traditional methods of protecting intellectual property. Sports brands and athletes may be losing hundreds of millions and possibly billions of dollars a year due to fraud and the misappropriation of their digital image and likeness. Stopping the problem is like playing whack-w-mole in your local arcade. When you think you have hit every target another one appears.
Every couple of months there seems to be another story how law enforcement has seized websites and/or counterfeit merchandise. Last year, when I read that Google paid a $500 million dollar fine to avoid prosecution that it knowingly accepted advertising that was against the law I wondered if Facebook had a similar problem. I started to pay closer attention to the ads that were appearing on my Facebook account and soon realized that Facebook may be accepting ads for counterfeit merchandise.
I have seen a tremendous number of ads for allegedly counterfeit merchandise on Facebook and I have discussed this issue with others, including the media. Generally, Internet platforms are not liable for the content that is posted on their websites. However, if a digital platform is put on notice about a problem and does not take reasonable steps to resolve it then it may have potential legal liability.
Does the law need to be updated? Does enforcement need to be increased?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Every couple of months there seems to be another story how law enforcement has seized websites and/or counterfeit merchandise. Last year, when I read that Google paid a $500 million dollar fine to avoid prosecution that it knowingly accepted advertising that was against the law I wondered if Facebook had a similar problem. I started to pay closer attention to the ads that were appearing on my Facebook account and soon realized that Facebook may be accepting ads for counterfeit merchandise.
I have seen a tremendous number of ads for allegedly counterfeit merchandise on Facebook and I have discussed this issue with others, including the media. Generally, Internet platforms are not liable for the content that is posted on their websites. However, if a digital platform is put on notice about a problem and does not take reasonable steps to resolve it then it may have potential legal liability.
Does the law need to be updated? Does enforcement need to be increased?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, December 10, 2012
FTC To Kids' Mobile App Developers: More Transparency Needed
On December 10, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued its 2012 Mobile Apps for Kids: Disclosures Still Not Making the Grade report. The overall theme of the report is that mobile app developers need to be more transparent about how they utilize the information they collect. The report found that "many apps included interactive features or shared kids' information with third parties without disclosing these practices to parents."
This survey was a follow up to the FTC's February 2012 report Mobile Apps For Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are Disappointing. In February 2012, the FTC's overall finding was that "little or no information was available to parents about the privacy practices and interactive features of the mobile apps surveyed prior to download".
Both of these reports demonstrate the need for the mobile apps industry to become more proactive to avoid greater regulation. Even though the Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) has been trying to self-regulate through its privacy policy guidelines and other initiatives, it appears that many app developers have not followed the MMA's guidelines. Since it appears that many app developers have not been following the MMA's guidelines the FTC appears ready to act.
The FTC's mobile apps privacy reports appear to provide the evidence that an update to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is needed. While these reports appear to indicate that our children's digital privacy needs to be better safeguarded, there have been concerns from Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the depth and breadth of the FTC's proposed updates. According to the New York Times, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Viacom, and Disney are some of the companies who have objected to some of the proposed updates to COPPA that have been submitted.
In general, many people don't understand how mobile applications collect and utilize the data that they acquire. Unfortunately, due to a lack of information available many parents and children may not be able to make informed decisions about how best to protect their digital privacy. This lack of information may be caused by a lack of transparency. For example, the new FTC report it found that "20% (81) of the apps reviewed linked to general disclosure information, including a privacy policy" (page 7). While this is an improvement over the 16% (64) figure that was reported in the FTC's prior mobile apps privacy report, more transparency is needed so that parents and children may better understand how their personal information is being utilized by others.
Consumers have tremendous concerns about mobile data privacy. For example, according to a September 2012 Pew Study, "54% of app users have decided to not install a cell phone app when they discovered how much personal information they would need to share in order to use it and 30% of app users have uninstalled an app that was already on their cell phone because they learned it was collecting personal information that they didn't want to share."
The bottom line is that parents and children need to be provided more information regarding what personal digital data is collected and how it is utilized. If a parent determines that it is acceptable for an app to collect and re-purpose his child's personal digital data that is his perogative. However, that is a personal decision that is best handled by a parent. Unless the moblie apps industry is able to effectively police itself and provide parents the information they need to make informed decisions about their children's digital privacy, more regulations are needed.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)