Digital Miranada Warning: IAC Executive Learns The Hard Way That You Have the Right To Remain Silent Online

Too many people don't understand the power of social media.  Fortune 500 executives, professional athletes, student-athletes, students, entertainers, politicians, etc... have all gotten into hot water because of their digital usage.  I regularly counsel members of these groups about the legal, business, and reputational challengers inherent with social media and other digital communication tools and it pains me whenever I hear about someone posting something online that may destroy their professional career. 

The latest Tweet that has gone viral and may be a career killer was posted on an account allegedly utilized by pr executive Justine Sacco of IAC.  She allegedly wrote while en route to Africa, "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS.  Just Kidding.  I'm white!"  By the time Ms. Sacco's plane landed, this message on her account went viral and caused a pr nightmare for herself and her employer IAC.

Too many self styled "branding experts", "social media consultants", etc.. advise people to share too many personal opinions online.  I disagree with this advice and generally agree with Mark Twain's adage, " [i]t is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marktwain103535.html#STC0rGBGPI5OUGP7.99

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marktwain103535.html#qG8bQHKbUMwqmy7s.99

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marktwain103535.html#qG8bQHKbUMwqmy7s.99

Internet users may want to learn about my Digital Miranda Warning that is a take off of the criminal law Miranda Warning that suspects are provided. The Miranda Warning states, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak with me?"

My Digital Miranda Warning sates, "You have the right to post online.  Anything you post online can and will be used against you by employers, schools, the media, etc....  You have the right not to post online.  If you feel compelled to post, don't upload anything that may make you look unprofessional.  With these rights in mind, do you still wish to post online?"

While my Digital Miranda Warning has saved some of my clients from digital career destruction, my hope is that more people become educated about the risks associated with utilizing social media before their online behavior destroys their reputation.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Snapchat iOS Update May Be A Danger To Privacy

Privacy is in vogue.  I believe Mark Zuckerberg's so called "Law of Information Sharing" is dead. While we as a society may continue to share more information online via social media, the cloud, apps, email, etc... people are more aware of the dangers of sharing too much so they are changing their behavior accordingly. 

Facebook recently admitting that younger teens are using their platform less.  Why? The answer is debatable; however, I believe it has something to do with parents, employers, schools, the police, governments, etc... wanting access to their personal digital content.  To help users believe the content they send online is safe from prying eyes multiple apps and other digital services have popped up that claim that user privacy is built in by design.  One of the most popular apps that claim they are built with privacy in mind is Snapchat.

Snapchat has become so popular that it was recently reported that Facebook tried to acquire the company for $3 billion dollars and Google may have offered $4 billion dollars.  There are allegedly 400 million snaps (images sent via Snapchat) received daily on the platform apparently because users believe their content is safer sent via Snapchat than through other services.

While Snapchat offers some better privacy protections than other content sharing apps due to its allegedly disappearing photo offering, its latest iOS update Replay feature actually endangers user privacy by allowing an image to be re-viewed at a later time.  In general, when opening a snap you don't have another image capturing device handy to take an image of the snap being viewed.  Usually, one opens a snap and it disappears after several seconds.  No harm, no foul unless the receiver has another image capturing device handy.  With the new Replay option enabled, if someone sends a  nude selfie or other potentially scandalous image, the receiver now may have plenty of time to have another device ready to capture the image.

Before this iOS update, images sent via Snapchat could be re-purposed beyond their intended usage and there have been some publicized incidents of snaps creating problems for those in the image(s).   For example, a Missouri mom is in legal trouble and was recently charged with endangering the welfare of a child (one of her kids) due to a topless photo her daughter took of her that was sent via Snapchat.  This case demonstrates the potential dangers users may encounter when taking personal photographs/videos and disseminating the images via digital platforms; even through Snapchat.

Providing a "second bite at the apple" to view content that a user has deemed "Snapable" or more private than images shared via Facebook is a danger to privacy.  Once content is digitized, it can potentially be sent anywhere in the world and saved for an infinite period of time.  Allowing more opportunities to view potentially scandalous content may put users' privacy at risk.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Sextortionist jailed for sexual cyber blackmail

A sexual cyber blackmailer was jailed for 5 years for hacking the digital media accounts of at least 350 women.  Sextortionist Karen "Gary" Kazaryan pleaded guilty in July to charges that he hacked into women's email and/or social media accounts and trolled them for nude and sexually-suggestive pictures from his California home.

According to court documents, Kazaryan gained unauthorized access to digital accounts and then obtained naked pictures of his victims and extorted them to provide additional photos and/or videos. If his victims refused his demands, he posted the original embarrassing content on the Internet.  The sentencing memorandum stated "[Kazaryan's] victims were devastated and felt like they had been raped".  More than 3000 nude images were found on Kazaryan's computer.

It wouldn't surprise me if more of these types of crimes are prosecuted in the near future.  However, is 5 years enough of a sentence to deter others from following in Kazaryan's footsteps? 

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

FTC Settles Charges Android Flashlight Mobile App Deceived Users

The FTC is continuing to crack down on companies that are intentionally misleading their users about privacy issues.  According to the FTC, the "Brightest Flashlight" app shared users' location, and device ID without their users' consent. Goldenshores Technologies, LLC was behind the app and this enforcement action appears to be the first involving geo-location data obtained from mobile devices.

The FTC put the mobile ecosystem on notice almost 2 years ago about their privacy concerns.  For example, in February 2012, the FTC issued a mobile privacy report that was focused on children and did a follow up titled Mobile Apps For Kids Report in December 2012.  These investigations demonstrated that some industry players needed to do a better of protecting their users' privacy.  The FTC released another report in February 2013 that reinforced the importance of these issues.  In July 2013, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published a draft of self-regulatory guidelines for privacy notices for mobile app and the Digital Advertising Alliance released a best practices guide for its members.

The FTC's announcement of this action is very timely considering that the lead article on the front page of today's Washington Post discussed how the NSA tracks cellphone locations worldwide.  A major problem with Goldenshores' app was that it did not disclose that user information would be "sent to third parties, such as advertising networks."  Another problem with the app was that before a consumer could choose to accept its terms and conditions, it began collecting and sending the potential users' personal information to third parties.

To view the settlement here is the link.  Public comments will be accepted through January 6, 2014. To contact the FTC regarding this matter here is the link.  Mobile app creators must be transparent and honest with their customers about the information that they collect and re-purpose. I make a personal choice to avoid many apps due to the privacy issues inherent and it would not surprise me if more mobile app companies incorporate privacy into the design of their products in the near future.

With access comes responsibility.  The more information a mobile app maker collects about their users the more information that the NSA and/or other government entities may be able to collect and utilize.  Apps and mobile ecosystems that are collecting a lot of information about their users are not only harming their users' personal privacy but also making it easy for the NSA to spy on their users.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Are States Taking The Lead to Enforce Digital Privacy Laws?

Recently, 37 states and the District of Columbia reached a $17 million dollar settlement with Google over its intentional circumvention of Internet users' privacy settings.  The case stemmed from "Google's bypassing of privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser to use cookies to track users and show them advertisements in 2011 and 2012."  This multi-state agreement followed Google's $22.5 million dollar settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over the same practice.  In total, Google has paid approximately $40 million dollars to federal/state regulators for intentionally harming the personal privacy rights of Internet users in this matter.

Google's ability to circumvent Apple's Safari browser setting was uncovered and publicized by the Wall Street Journal on February 17, 2012.  According to the Wall Street Journal's investigation, Google and several other advertising "companies used special computer code that trick[ed] Apple's Safari Web-browsing software" into letting them track the web-browsing habits of users who tried to protect their personal privacy.  After the Wall Street Journal contacted Google about its alleged illegal activities the company disabled the code.  However, why did the Wall Street Journal need to contact Google in order for it to stop violating the personal privacy rights of Internet users?

In 2011, the FTC "resolved charges that Google used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers when it launched its social network, Google Buzz."  In 2012, Google paid a $7 million dollar fine to 38 states for privacy violations regarding its Street View project which collected "passwords, e-mail and other personal information from unsuspecting computer users."   Earlier this year, a lawsuit was allowed to proceed that, "alleges that Google illegally scanned emails for users of Internet service providers who used a self-branded version of Gmail, as well as for Google Apps for Education users".

While the focus of the state attorney generals and FTC investigations regarding this privacy matter have been on consumers why hasn't there been media attention on how Google's actions may have harmed students who utilized school provided Apple products?  In 2011, the New York Times discussed how thousands of students across the country were utilizing iPads because of special pilot programs and multi-million dollar government grants.  

Did Google intentionally disable the privacy settings on tax payer funded and/or government owned student iPads and other Apple products that use Safari browsers to track student interactions with teachers and/or other students for pecuniary gain?  How many students had their privacy rights violated by Google while utilizing school provided Apple products?  If a student surfing the web using Safari was logged into a Google account (i.e. Gmail, YouTube, Google +, Blogger, etc...) all of his school related web usage may have been tracked and monetized by Google.  Did Google's behavior violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)?  Why hasn't the Department of Education  opened an investigation into this matter?

If Google intentionally disabled the privacy settings of Internet users who chose to utilize a competitor's product (i.e. web browser Safari instead of Google's Chrome) how can Google be trusted to respect and protect the personal privacy of those who utilize Google products?  While Google has claimed it does not show ads by default to student users of its Google Apps For Education services, how can parents, guardians, teachers, and school administrators be sure that Google isn't still collecting, combining, and monetizing student data behind the scenes since it has been fined millions of dollars multiple times for violating the privacy rights of users in the past?

Sweden appears to have lost faith in Google's privacy promises and is requiring a municipality in Stockholm to rework its Google Apps For Education Agreement to better protect student data or its schools will be required to stop using Google's services.  Should Sweden's students have more privacy protections than those in the United States?

In Google's settlement agreement with 37 state attorney generals it lists in Appendix A the state consumer protection statutes/computer abuse statutes that Google allegedly violated.  Since some of these statutes may be utilized in conjunction with the federal U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) when digital wrongdoing is alleged why hasn't the Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation into this matter?  Shouldn't the DOJ at least investigate these issues with the same vigor that resulted in Google forfeiting $500 million dollars due to its actions that enabled its users to unlawfully import controlled and non-controlled prescription drugs into the United States that may have violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act?

State attorney generals are utilizing their powers to hold Internet companies accountable for online violations of state law.  While the FTC is increasing its Internet enforcement activities, it is imperative for all interested parties to work in conjunction to ensure that those companies that break state and/or federal digital privacy laws are held accountable for their actions.

 

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.