Facebook User To Be Fined Under Spanish Social Media Gag Law For Police Comments

Social Media in its infancy was hailed as a great equalizer for everyone's voice to be heard. Years ago, at conference after conference, I heard so called "futurists" and other "prognosticators" proclaim social media as the best invention since air conditioning or the microwave.

So many social media "evangelists" (a fancy term for some consultants who are full of s*#t) shouted from the roof tops how digital platforms would make the world a safer and freer place to exchange ideas and increase the freedom of speech.  Unfortunately, many of these "evangelists" don't understand how some governments and private companies are using social media to digitally follow and keep tabs on what people are doing.  Some of these new activities are actually a huge threat to democracy and our personal freedoms.  

Earlier this year, the government in Spain enacted its "Citizen Security Law" which appears to restrict what its citizens may say online about some government officials.  On July 22nd, the law was apparently utilized when local police in Spain accused one of its citizens of "making comments on social media that showed a lack of respect and consideration for Gumar's (a town in Spain) local police.  The accused may be fined hundreds of Euros and has hired a lawyer to fight the charges.  

Spain isn't the first country to enact and/or enforce laws specifically designed to stop its citizens from criticizing its government online and it will not be the last country to do so.  Therefore, it is imperative to be vigilant about digital freedom of speech and privacy.  You don't know how important these rights are until you lose them.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Facial Recognition Privacy Talks Collapse Due to Inadequate Consumer Safeguards

According to The New York Times, nine civil rights and other advocacy organizations announced today that they are withdrawing from "talks with trade associations over how to write guidelines for the fair commercial use of face recognition technology for consumers."

Why are these talks so important?  Because every time you walk into a fast food restaurant instead of a health food store you will be tracked and this information will be sent to data brokers who will insert it into your digital dossier.  You will be penalized for who you talk to in public (whether its a friend, business associate, or a stranger on the street) and this data will be tied to you forever.  What stores you visit and when you visit them will be collected and available to interested parties.

Should private companies have the right to know if you attend weekly religious functions and what faith you practice based upon your comings and goings?  What about whether you are seen visiting a bar or other gathering known for particular social or political characteristics?  Do you want others to know whether you frequent casinos, liquor stores, cigar shops, or certain specialty retailers?  Visiting these places and making purchases are perfectly legal.  However, when each of these individual activities are taken together it can paint a picture of our lives.  This is why John Hancock has created a new life insurance product that tracks your every move.  These are just a few examples of why stronger privacy protections are needed for biometrics.

Privacy is a civil right.  The potential for discrimination is high.  The more data that is being collected about us the greater the risk of the information falling into the wrong hands.  For example, the recent cyber attack on federal databases by Chinese hackers is a serious threat to national security and personal safety.  The systems compromised housed information on federal workers, their families, and those who interact with them.  The type of data contained in these files may be utilized for strategic national and economic security, blackmail, and who knows what else.

Absent participation by civil rights groups and privacy advocates, the facial recognition talks are worthless.  Its time for more technology companies to take a public stand for greater privacy protections.  The 4th amendment has protected us against unreasonable government searches and seizures for more than 200 years.  Its time for us to demand that our government extend this principle to protect us against unreasonable data collection and usage by private companies.

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

U.S. Government Ethics Office Releases Personal Social Media Usage Standards

Earlier this month, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) released its Standards of Conduct as Applied to Personal Social Media Usage.  The standards are as follows:

1.  Use of Government Time and Property
This requirement limits the amount of time employees may access their personal social media accounts while working on government business (i.e. while on the job).  In addition, supervisors may not order or ask a subordinate to work on their (the supervisor's) personal social media accounts.  

2. Reference to Government Title or Position & Appearance of Official Sanction
This requirement prohibits employees from using their official titles, position, or any authority associated with their government employment for personal gain.  This rules implies that in certain situations it may be a best practice to post a "clear and conspicuous disclaimer" that the content on one's personal social media account is not sanctioned or endorsed by the government.

3.  Recommending and Endorsing Others on Social Media
Government employees may recommend others on social media platforms such as LinkedIn.  However, in my opinion, supervisors and subordinates should be very careful when endorsing each other on digital platforms because it may create potential legal issues in the future.

4.  Seeking Employment through Social Media
Those seeking employment via digital platforms must conform with all applicable laws and regulations.  Therefore it is imperative to know and understand all rules and regulations when utilizing social media for employment purposes.

5.  Disclosing Nonpublic Information
Employees are prohibited from disclosing non-public information on digital platforms to further their personal interests or the personal interests of others.  The World War II adage, "Loose lips sink ships" is alive and well in the Social Media Age so use caution when posting information online.

6.  Personal Fundraising
Employees are permitted to utilize personal digital accounts to fund raise for non-profit charitable organizations as long as they comply with all appropriate federal rules.  For example, employees should not personally solicit funds from subordinates or prohibited sources.

7.  Official Social Media Accounts
Employees who are authorized to utilize official social media accounts must comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, policies, directives, etc...

OGE may issue updates from time to time so it is best to utilize caution when participating in social media.  The bottom line is when in doubt don't post online.

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Radio Shack's Proposed Sale Of Customer Data Violates Its Privacy Policy

Radio Shack is on life support and will soon no longer exist in its current format.  Its unfortunate that a store I grew up going to with my grandfather will soon be out of business.  Its last great hurrah was its awesome Super Bowl ad that brought back its glory days from the 1980's. 

Radio Shack is losing so much money that it has resorted to selling one of its most prized assets.  Its customers' personal information.  What is most disturbing is that despite its long stated privacy promise that "[w]e will not sell or rent your personally identifiable information to anyone at any time," this promise may be ignored in bankruptcy court. 

Last year, an educational technology company ConnnectEDU tried to sell the millions of records it had accumulated on young children and the FTC stepped in and fought to require it to honor its privacy promises.  My hope is that the FTC joins Texas regulators in fighting to protect Radio Shack's customers' personal information.  Personally Identifiable Information is extremely valuable and its a very positive step that regulators are beginning to understand the importance of requiring companies to honor their privacy commitments to its customers or users. 

I don't want data brokers to learn about all of the cool things I use to make with my late grandfather.  Its none of their damn business! 

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

10 Social Media Privacy New Year's Resolutions

I have listed below 10 New Year's resolutions for those who want to better protect their personal privacy in the Social Media Age:

1)    Limit social sharing.  Privacy is cool and hip and sharing too much is not.
2)    Don't take nude selfies.
3)    Send fewer emails and make more phone calls and have more face to face meetings.
4)    Use disappearing apps cautiously.
5)    Keep your smartphone location off unless using it for directions.
6)    Don't trust apps or online services that have bad privacy policies/practices.
7)    Don't trust Facebook with your personal information because its agreements with data brokers destroy your privacy.
8)   Don't trust Google's Gmail, Apps, etc... because its privacy policy allows for unfettered data mining and user profile creation that destroy your privacy. 
9)    Limit Twitter and other public social media conversations.
10)  Advocate for stronger digital privacy laws.  Lawmakers and regulators need to hear your voice!  

These 10 recommendations are the tip of the ice berg.  Data brokers, employers, schools, insurance companies, financial firms, law enforcement, etc... are watching your social media profile so limit your digital footprint.  In the Social Media Age, this famous proverb should still be followed:  "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

Wishing you all a happy and healthy 2015 and beyond!

Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.

California's New Digital "Eraser Button" Law

On January 1, 2015, California's SB 568 Privacy Rights For California's Minors in The Digital World goes into effect.  The bill was signed in September 2013 and gave website operators a little more than a year to ensure that they have the ability to comply with the new law.

In general, SB 568, seeks to protect minors by generally prohibiting operators of digital platforms (such as web sites, online services, online applications, mobile apps, etc...) from knowingly marketing and advertising to a minor a broad range of products specified in the law.  Some of these products may include alcoholic beverages, firearms, ammunition, tobacco products, fireworks, lottery tickets, tattoos, drug paraphernalia.  The new law requires operators of digital platforms to notify minors of their rights to remove content or information they posted and honor their requests to remove such data, subject to specified conditions and exceptions.

At first glance, this new law doesn't appear to have much teeth.  For example, the law doesn't appear to have an enforcement mechanism and it is silent about a private right of action against those who may violate the law.  Therefore, when this new law is allegedly violated how does one go about rectifying the situation?    

While SB 568 may help protect California minors from some digital mistakes that may harm their ability to gain acceptance into the college of their dreams, it should not replace educating our children about the digital issues that they confront every day.

Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved. 

A Sony Hack Lesson: Digital Privacy and Cyber Security Go Hand and Hand

The Sony hack has taught us many lessons about digital privacy and cyber security.  One of the biggest lessons is to be careful about what you put in an email.  Another is to ensure that proper email retention policies are in place.  A third lesson is that employees need to be better trained about these issues.  As privacy law expert Prof. Dan Solove recently stated, there are real harms when one's privacy is breached.

According to multiple published reports, the FBI has named North Korea as the prime suspect in the hacking attack.  If North Korea directed or encouraged those responsible for the hack because it wasn't happy with the theme of the movie The Interview it opens up a new front on what companies will have to prepare for when a business decision may not be popular with a foreign government or a well funded adversary.   

If a nation state such as North Korea or a well funded organization is determined to hack into a corporate computer system it will do so.  Companies can take steps to reduce the risk by creating new digital policies, training their employees, installing new cyber security systems, taking certain systems offline, etc...

The Sony hack has exposed most if not all of its secrets for all to see.  From the troubling gender pay gap to the leak of social security numbers, personal health care records, corporate budgets, etc...the hack has greatly damaged Sony's reputation.  While Sony may eventually be able to recover from this very troubling matter, it wouldn't surprise me if multiple executives leave the company in the near future due to what is contained in their emails.

The bottom line is that the most state of the art cyber security system may not protect against human error or stupidity.  Therefore, it is imperative to constantly train and educate employees about digital privacy and cyber security matters.  Privacy is something we take for granted until it has been lost.  With the right education and mindset, privacy and cyber security doesn't have to be a luxury.

Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC.  All rights reserved.

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.

California Highway Patrol Nude Photo Theft Scandal May Create Hundreds of Millions In Legal Liability

The Contra Costa Times is reporting that a California Highway Patrol officer has been "accused of stealing nude photos from a DUI suspect's phone" and "that he and his fellow officers have been trading such images for years."  This behavior is not only very troubling, it may violate multiple federal and state computer theft laws and may even trigger California's revenge porn statute. 

The Contra Costa Times further states, "[i]n the search warrant affidavit [for the matter], senior Contra Costa district attorney inspector Darryl Holcombe wrote that he found probable cause to show both CHP officers Harrington and Hazelwood and others engaged in a "scheme to unlawfully access the cell phone of female arrestees by intentionally gaining access to their cell phone and without their knowledge, stealing and retaining nude or partially clothed photographs of them."

This alleged behavior demonstrates why the Riley v. California case is so important.  In that matter, the U.S. Supreme Court held 9-0 that the police generally need a warrant before searching cell phones and electronic devices of those arrested.  All of the facts of this case have not yet been proven so it is difficult to determine exactly in what manner the victims had their phones searched and their personal images stolen and forwarded to others.

Johns Hopkins Hospital recently paid $190 million dollars to settle a matter where a doctor had taken thousands of nude photos of patients without their consent.  In that case, there was no evidence the photos had been shared.  However, in this case, court documents allege that images had been shared.  Therefore, the Johns Hopkins Hospital $190 million dollar settlement may be a benchmark for any potential settlement. 

In general, many organizations need to do a better job of training their employees about digital usage and legal matters.  Here, since those who are accused of wrong doing are police officers they should have known that their alleged behavior may violate multiple state and/or federal laws.  

Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC.  All rights reserved.