According to Entertainment Tonight, the LA Police Department has opened an investigation into 2015 Playmate of the Year Dani Mathers' Snapchat activity after it received a complaint from LA Fitness. It appears that the investigation is centered around an alleged illegally disseminated private image Ms. Mathers took of a fellow gym member inside an LA Fitness club. While Ms. Mathers was in the bathroom/shower area of an LA Fitness gym she took a naked photo of another person and posted it on Snapchat with some negative comments.
Subsequently, the naked photo Ms. Mathers posted went viral and she has gone from being the bully who body shamed a fellow gym member for personal pleasure to a target herself. If the person in the photo comes forward Ms. Mathers could face up to six months in prison for her behavior.
Since Ms. Mathers published the naked photo, she has been suspended from her radio show and banned from all LA Fitness gyms. Online, thousands of people have also stated how disgusted they are about Ms. Mathers' actions.
Ms. Mathers' behavior demonstrates she didn't even realize what she had done was wrong. Her apology shows she doesn't have a clue about the law or proper digital behavior. Ms. Mathers only apologized for posting the photo on Snapchat. She admits in her so called apology that she had the intent to take the naked photo of stranger and share it with her friends. This demonstrates a lack of remorse and understanding of the seriousness of the situation.
People have an expectation of privacy in bathrooms whether they are in a public restroom or a private club. Those who violate this expectation of privacy should be held legally accountable. If Ms. Mathers is sued by the person whom she photographed I wouldn't be surprised if a settlement or judgement is either six or seven figures. The Erin Andrews jury verdict and subsequent settlement is the benchmark to measure these types of privacy violations.
The bottom line is that companies need to better train their employees about these issues because one dumb Snap, Tweet, or Post can create millions in legal liability.
Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Law and Social Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law and Social Media. Show all posts
Friday, July 15, 2016
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Florida Prosecutor's Reputation Destroyed Over Facebook Comments
Be careful what you say online because it may come back to hurt you. Unfortunately, too many people don't heed this advice and this time an attorney has forever harmed his reputation because of unprovoked online posts. Florida Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis was suspended for posting online inflammatory messages about the city of Orlando in wake of the tragic nightclub terrorist attack. His comments violated his employer's social media policy.
It appears that Mr. Lewis has been investigated for previously posting inappropriate online comments. Just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean its a good idea to do so. For years, people have felt less inhibited to attach their names to very incendiary online comments because its so easy to do so from the comfort of your own home. Unfortunately, many people don't realize that comments meant for just friends or family may be seen around the world in just seconds.
Will Mr. Lewis be passed over for promotion because of this issue? Will Mr. Lewis' online comments encourage his employer to terminate his employment for this or other behavior? Will his online activities hurt his ability to transition to another employer?
In the Digital Age, it is imperative to understand how the Internet may help or harm your personal and professional reputation.
Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.
It appears that Mr. Lewis has been investigated for previously posting inappropriate online comments. Just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean its a good idea to do so. For years, people have felt less inhibited to attach their names to very incendiary online comments because its so easy to do so from the comfort of your own home. Unfortunately, many people don't realize that comments meant for just friends or family may be seen around the world in just seconds.
Will Mr. Lewis be passed over for promotion because of this issue? Will Mr. Lewis' online comments encourage his employer to terminate his employment for this or other behavior? Will his online activities hurt his ability to transition to another employer?
In the Digital Age, it is imperative to understand how the Internet may help or harm your personal and professional reputation.
Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Supreme Court to Hear Major Data Privacy and Digital Reputation Case
According to the Associated Press, the Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether digital platforms "that collect personal data can be sued for publishing inaccurate
information even if the mistakes don’t cause any actual harm." A Virginia resident sued Spokeo.com (an Internet company that compiles alleged publicly available data on people and lets
subscribers view the information, including address, age, marital status, economic health, etc...) because it listed inaccurate information about him and he claims it damaged his job prospects. The plaintiff lost in federal district court; however the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and found that Spokeo had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
This is a very interesting case because of the importance of one's digital reputation. Should companies such as Spokeo and others that acquire and re-purpose information about people be required to authenticate the accuracy of the data they publish? If so, how should authentication occur?
In the Digital Age, what does actual harm mean? How does one know if actual harm has occurred? Do prospective employers, colleges, financial firms, insurance companies, etc.. always tell applicants they were denied an offer because of data found online at Spokeo or another digital platform?
Should companies that compile data on users/consumers and provide this information to others for a fee be regulated as a consumer reporting agency under FCRA? Recently, a judge in California found that LinkedIn was not a consumer reporting agency under the definition of FRCA. Despite this one court's ruling, are companies such as Spokeo, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, etc... avoiding being regulated under FCRA because of an outdated definition of a consumer reporting agency?
Facebook has agreements in place that enable it to send all your personal information (i.e. personal feelings indicated, posts, photos, friend connections, likes, etc...) to data brokers and this information may be utilized against you when applying for a job, insurance, etc... Google scans your emails, calendars, cloud drive, etc... for behavioral advertising and who knows what other purposes. Does some of Facebook's and Google's activities fall under FCRA and if not should they?
The bottom line is that due to the importance of digital reputation stronger regulations are needed to protect our privacy. Spokeo advertises itself as the "leading people search platform using proprietary technology to organize information into comprehensive yet easy-to-understand online profiles;" Google states its "mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful;" and Forbes has stated Facebook "moves to become the world's most powerful data broker."
If these companies acts like data brokers should they also be regulated as them as well? We may soon find out how the Supreme Court views data privacy and digital reputation in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
This is a very interesting case because of the importance of one's digital reputation. Should companies such as Spokeo and others that acquire and re-purpose information about people be required to authenticate the accuracy of the data they publish? If so, how should authentication occur?
In the Digital Age, what does actual harm mean? How does one know if actual harm has occurred? Do prospective employers, colleges, financial firms, insurance companies, etc.. always tell applicants they were denied an offer because of data found online at Spokeo or another digital platform?
Should companies that compile data on users/consumers and provide this information to others for a fee be regulated as a consumer reporting agency under FCRA? Recently, a judge in California found that LinkedIn was not a consumer reporting agency under the definition of FRCA. Despite this one court's ruling, are companies such as Spokeo, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, etc... avoiding being regulated under FCRA because of an outdated definition of a consumer reporting agency?
Facebook has agreements in place that enable it to send all your personal information (i.e. personal feelings indicated, posts, photos, friend connections, likes, etc...) to data brokers and this information may be utilized against you when applying for a job, insurance, etc... Google scans your emails, calendars, cloud drive, etc... for behavioral advertising and who knows what other purposes. Does some of Facebook's and Google's activities fall under FCRA and if not should they?
The bottom line is that due to the importance of digital reputation stronger regulations are needed to protect our privacy. Spokeo advertises itself as the "leading people search platform using proprietary technology to organize information into comprehensive yet easy-to-understand online profiles;" Google states its "mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful;" and Forbes has stated Facebook "moves to become the world's most powerful data broker."
If these companies acts like data brokers should they also be regulated as them as well? We may soon find out how the Supreme Court views data privacy and digital reputation in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Twitter's App Graph Privacy Fail Whale: Will The FTC Investigate?
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.
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.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Lawsuit: University of Cincinnatti Medical Center Employee Posted Patient STD Diagnosis on Facebook
While social media may be utilized to connect people all over the world to raise money for charity or to persuade citizens to overthrow dictatorships, it may also be used to spread the most personal information for all to see. Recently, a 20-year old Ohio woman had her sexually transmitted disease diagnosis posted on Facebook by a hospital employee.
The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that an image of the victim's medical record showing her name and syphilis diagnosis was posted on Facebook to a group called "Team No Hoes" in 2013. This posting appears to be a federal HIPAA violation and it may also violate multiple Ohio state laws.
What is the value of the damage to one's reputation if their sexually transmitted disease diagnosis is posted online? The victim is a 20-year old female who may be unable to obtain employment or gain acceptance into college or graduate school because of this disgusting breach of her personal privacy. She may also be fired from her employment and/or discriminated against in other unsubtle and undetectable ways. In addition, the victim may have trouble getting a date and/or finding a mate due to this information being disseminated.
I am surprised that the hospital did not settle this matter out of court before it was filed. The reputational damage to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center may be steep. Will patients go to other service providers due to this incident? Will the hospital reach a settlement with the victim before it goes to trial? Does the hospital want a jury to even hear this case?
While I believe the new European "right to be forgotten" may be abused by child molesters, rapists, murders, politicians, etc...who may want to hide their criminal past, and it may be difficult to implement this new right, should victims of this type breach of their personal medical privacy be afforded the right to be forgotten in the United States?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that an image of the victim's medical record showing her name and syphilis diagnosis was posted on Facebook to a group called "Team No Hoes" in 2013. This posting appears to be a federal HIPAA violation and it may also violate multiple Ohio state laws.
What is the value of the damage to one's reputation if their sexually transmitted disease diagnosis is posted online? The victim is a 20-year old female who may be unable to obtain employment or gain acceptance into college or graduate school because of this disgusting breach of her personal privacy. She may also be fired from her employment and/or discriminated against in other unsubtle and undetectable ways. In addition, the victim may have trouble getting a date and/or finding a mate due to this information being disseminated.
I am surprised that the hospital did not settle this matter out of court before it was filed. The reputational damage to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center may be steep. Will patients go to other service providers due to this incident? Will the hospital reach a settlement with the victim before it goes to trial? Does the hospital want a jury to even hear this case?
While I believe the new European "right to be forgotten" may be abused by child molesters, rapists, murders, politicians, etc...who may want to hide their criminal past, and it may be difficult to implement this new right, should victims of this type breach of their personal medical privacy be afforded the right to be forgotten in the United States?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Facebook's Troubling Move App Privacy Policy Change
Does Facebook really care about protecting its users' privacy? Facebook's history appears to demonstrate that the answer is no. For example, in 2012 Facebook entered into a settlement with the FTC resolving charges that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.
In 2012, Facebook changed Instagram's (Facebook had recently purchased it) privacy policy to enable it to better monetize its users' personal information. At that time, I stated that the changes were very troubling. Soon after making the privacy policy change announcement, Instagram (i.e. Facebook) backtracked on some of the revisions due to public backlash. In 2013, Facebook agreed to a $20 million dollar settlement in a lawsuit that alleged it utilized its users' names and likeness in paid advertisements without permission.
On April 24, 2014, Facebook purchased fitness tracking app Move. The Wall Street Journal reported that Move just "changed its privacy policy to allow broader sharing of user data, including with Facebook." Interestingly, Facebook's "move" to erode Move users' privacy took less than 2 weeks. Move users may have their fitness information combined with their likes, friend lists, photos, personal messages, etc...and this information may be sold to data brokers such as Axciom, Epsilon, Datalogix and Blue Kai. In turn, data brokers may sell your combined "likes" and fitness routine information to insurance companies, banks, etc... Unfortunately, Move/Facebook users may be discriminated against based upon their daily exercises or lack thereof.
Since companies such as Facebook appear to put privacy ahead of profits our lawmakers need to act to protect Internet/App users from Digital Usage Discrimination before it is too late.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
In 2012, Facebook changed Instagram's (Facebook had recently purchased it) privacy policy to enable it to better monetize its users' personal information. At that time, I stated that the changes were very troubling. Soon after making the privacy policy change announcement, Instagram (i.e. Facebook) backtracked on some of the revisions due to public backlash. In 2013, Facebook agreed to a $20 million dollar settlement in a lawsuit that alleged it utilized its users' names and likeness in paid advertisements without permission.
On April 24, 2014, Facebook purchased fitness tracking app Move. The Wall Street Journal reported that Move just "changed its privacy policy to allow broader sharing of user data, including with Facebook." Interestingly, Facebook's "move" to erode Move users' privacy took less than 2 weeks. Move users may have their fitness information combined with their likes, friend lists, photos, personal messages, etc...and this information may be sold to data brokers such as Axciom, Epsilon, Datalogix and Blue Kai. In turn, data brokers may sell your combined "likes" and fitness routine information to insurance companies, banks, etc... Unfortunately, Move/Facebook users may be discriminated against based upon their daily exercises or lack thereof.
Since companies such as Facebook appear to put privacy ahead of profits our lawmakers need to act to protect Internet/App users from Digital Usage Discrimination before it is too late.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Facebook Insult About Islam May Lead To Execution in Iran
Be careful about what you say online. For example, if you are a United Kingdom resident and post allegedly derogatory messages about Iran and/or Islam and then visit Iran you may be detained by the Iranian authorities. This appears to have happened to a British resident recently.
According to The Independent, a British woman allegedly posted derogatory comments about Iran's government and Islam on Facebook. It appears that as soon as she landed in Shiraz, Iran to visit family she arrested and was taken to Tehran and charged with "gathering and participation with intent to commit crime against national security" and "insulting Islamic sanctities". These charges may lead to her execution.
This set of facts leads me to believe that Iran is social media monitoring every negative comment online about its government and when it has the opportunity to arrest the alleged speakers it does.
The bottom line is that sometimes it is best to have anonymity online. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously for a reason and that reason was to express political opinions without fear of retribution. Therefore, before making online political comments about certain issues anonymity may be best.
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to The Independent, a British woman allegedly posted derogatory comments about Iran's government and Islam on Facebook. It appears that as soon as she landed in Shiraz, Iran to visit family she arrested and was taken to Tehran and charged with "gathering and participation with intent to commit crime against national security" and "insulting Islamic sanctities". These charges may lead to her execution.
This set of facts leads me to believe that Iran is social media monitoring every negative comment online about its government and when it has the opportunity to arrest the alleged speakers it does.
The bottom line is that sometimes it is best to have anonymity online. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously for a reason and that reason was to express political opinions without fear of retribution. Therefore, before making online political comments about certain issues anonymity may be best.
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
ESPN.com's Commenting Policy Harms Personal Privacy and Assists Data Brokers
I love watching the Olympics. Team USA's gold medal winning performance in men's ice hockey in 1980 inspired me to start playing ice hockey when I was a kid. In the 1980's, there was a foosball like arcade game that had Team USA v. USSR (CCCP) face off in a mini hockey rink that I enjoyed playing.
While recently reading an ESPN.com article about the latest U.S. v. Russia men's ice hockey game today I decided to review the comments section of the article. I noticed that ESPN.com has joined other websites in using Facebook's comment platform. This is unfortunate since Facebook's commenting platform is a threat to personal privacy, the freedom of speech, and it assists data brokers.
Approximately a year ago, Facebook partnered with data brokers Axciom, Epsilon, Datalogix and Blue Kai to provide them a treasure trove of personal information about its users. This partnership has greatly deteriorated the personal privacy of Facebook users and their "Facebook Friends". Therefore, any comment one makes about Team USA beating Russia in the Olympics may then be placed in one's data broker file. This information may then be utilized to discriminate against those who make a public comment using Facebook's platform.
Americans have utilized public forums to anonymously comment on issues of the day since at least the time of the Federalist Papers in 1788. Facebook's comment platform destroys anonymity and deters open public discourse. Those who utilize Facebook's comment platform may not realize that every comment they make is tied to them forever.
The bottom line is that social media users may need to become better educated regarding how commercial entities are tracking them online and how data brokers may be a greater threat to our personal privacy, safety, and security than the NSA, a foreign government, or hackers.
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
While recently reading an ESPN.com article about the latest U.S. v. Russia men's ice hockey game today I decided to review the comments section of the article. I noticed that ESPN.com has joined other websites in using Facebook's comment platform. This is unfortunate since Facebook's commenting platform is a threat to personal privacy, the freedom of speech, and it assists data brokers.
Approximately a year ago, Facebook partnered with data brokers Axciom, Epsilon, Datalogix and Blue Kai to provide them a treasure trove of personal information about its users. This partnership has greatly deteriorated the personal privacy of Facebook users and their "Facebook Friends". Therefore, any comment one makes about Team USA beating Russia in the Olympics may then be placed in one's data broker file. This information may then be utilized to discriminate against those who make a public comment using Facebook's platform.
Americans have utilized public forums to anonymously comment on issues of the day since at least the time of the Federalist Papers in 1788. Facebook's comment platform destroys anonymity and deters open public discourse. Those who utilize Facebook's comment platform may not realize that every comment they make is tied to them forever.
The bottom line is that social media users may need to become better educated regarding how commercial entities are tracking them online and how data brokers may be a greater threat to our personal privacy, safety, and security than the NSA, a foreign government, or hackers.
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Canadian Teen Convicted of Sexting Child Pornography
A Canadian teenager was recently convicted of sexting pornographic photos. According to CNN, a teenage girl was found guilty of distributing via text pornographic photos of her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend.
This case appears to have occurred because a teenager became jealous that her boyfriend was still in contact with his ex-girlfriend. According to prosecutors, the convicted teenager initially threatened her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend on Facebook. The defendant then allegedly texted five naked photos of the ex-girlfriend that she found on her boyfriend's cell phone to several other people. The prosecutors examined approximately 36,000 texts during the investigation. The parties involved in this matter were approximately the same age.
This appears to be an unfortunate situation that before the Social Media Age would never have occurred. In general, child pornography laws were intended to stop those over the age of majority (in general 18 years of age) from exploiting minors. Does this case demonstrate a need to re-examine child pornography laws?
Due to the proliferation of cell phones and mobile apps that make sharing images (i.e. photos and videos) extremely easily, it is imperative that teenagers learn about the legal issues inherent with social media usage. Unfortunately, it would not surprise me if these cases become more common in the future.
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
This case appears to have occurred because a teenager became jealous that her boyfriend was still in contact with his ex-girlfriend. According to prosecutors, the convicted teenager initially threatened her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend on Facebook. The defendant then allegedly texted five naked photos of the ex-girlfriend that she found on her boyfriend's cell phone to several other people. The prosecutors examined approximately 36,000 texts during the investigation. The parties involved in this matter were approximately the same age.
This appears to be an unfortunate situation that before the Social Media Age would never have occurred. In general, child pornography laws were intended to stop those over the age of majority (in general 18 years of age) from exploiting minors. Does this case demonstrate a need to re-examine child pornography laws?
Due to the proliferation of cell phones and mobile apps that make sharing images (i.e. photos and videos) extremely easily, it is imperative that teenagers learn about the legal issues inherent with social media usage. Unfortunately, it would not surprise me if these cases become more common in the future.
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
White House Twitter Critic Fired Over Tweets
A Twitter Critic of the White House was recently unmasked and fired from his Obama administration job. According to the Daily Beast, Jofi Joseph, a member of in the National Security Staff was terminated from his position after he was caught as the person behind the Twitter handle @natsecwonk.
In the past, those who wanted to criticize the President and/or his staff would reach out to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post or another reporter and the information would end up in the newspaper and/or in a book. However, now it appears that internal administration critics are going directly to the public via Twitter and/or other digital platforms.
At first glance, it doesn't appear that Mr. Joseph released top secret material in his Tweets. Anonymous digital postings are usually not very reliable. However, Mr. Joseph's unmasking and termination has now provided some credibility to the anonymous Tweets that previously were not given much weight by those outside the administration. According to Mr. Joseph's comments to Politico, "[w]hat started out as an intended parody account of DC culture developed over time into a series of inappropriate and mean-spirited comments."
Why is the Obama administration spending tremendous resources hunting down Twitter critics? The administration has been actively targeting journalists and their sources for some time. How did the White House actually unmask its Twitter critic? Did the White House ask for and receive Twitter's assistance? Does the administration realize that silencing a Twitter critic has made the matter worse because of the Streisand Effect? Since the Tweets in question appear to be just inappropriate and mean-spirited why should the administration care?
Mishandling and/or leaking classified documents and/or information may be a crime depending upon the circumstances. If Mr. Joseph's digital activities violated any laws he should be prosecuted like anyone else. However, posting negative Tweets about those in the government is not a crime. In a democracy, this is called exercising our freedom of speech rights. Last week, I spoke to a group of international government officials who wanted to know what to do when someone anonymously mocks them online. My response was to "get some thicker skin".
While there may be some potential First Amendment, employee/employer, and national security legal issues to address once all of the facts have come to light, at the end of the day this is about a person who happens to be a government employee Tweeting anonymously about his personal observations and/or thoughts about the inner workings of the government. Nothing more.
President Obama is the first President to become elected because of social media and his administration has utilized multiple digital platforms to convey his message directly to the entire world without a media filter. Its time for some members of the President's inner circle to get some thicker skin and realize they are the first administration to govern in the Social Media Age. The administration's "Twitter critic mole hunt" raises more questions than it answers.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In the past, those who wanted to criticize the President and/or his staff would reach out to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post or another reporter and the information would end up in the newspaper and/or in a book. However, now it appears that internal administration critics are going directly to the public via Twitter and/or other digital platforms.
At first glance, it doesn't appear that Mr. Joseph released top secret material in his Tweets. Anonymous digital postings are usually not very reliable. However, Mr. Joseph's unmasking and termination has now provided some credibility to the anonymous Tweets that previously were not given much weight by those outside the administration. According to Mr. Joseph's comments to Politico, "[w]hat started out as an intended parody account of DC culture developed over time into a series of inappropriate and mean-spirited comments."
Why is the Obama administration spending tremendous resources hunting down Twitter critics? The administration has been actively targeting journalists and their sources for some time. How did the White House actually unmask its Twitter critic? Did the White House ask for and receive Twitter's assistance? Does the administration realize that silencing a Twitter critic has made the matter worse because of the Streisand Effect? Since the Tweets in question appear to be just inappropriate and mean-spirited why should the administration care?
Mishandling and/or leaking classified documents and/or information may be a crime depending upon the circumstances. If Mr. Joseph's digital activities violated any laws he should be prosecuted like anyone else. However, posting negative Tweets about those in the government is not a crime. In a democracy, this is called exercising our freedom of speech rights. Last week, I spoke to a group of international government officials who wanted to know what to do when someone anonymously mocks them online. My response was to "get some thicker skin".
While there may be some potential First Amendment, employee/employer, and national security legal issues to address once all of the facts have come to light, at the end of the day this is about a person who happens to be a government employee Tweeting anonymously about his personal observations and/or thoughts about the inner workings of the government. Nothing more.
President Obama is the first President to become elected because of social media and his administration has utilized multiple digital platforms to convey his message directly to the entire world without a media filter. Its time for some members of the President's inner circle to get some thicker skin and realize they are the first administration to govern in the Social Media Age. The administration's "Twitter critic mole hunt" raises more questions than it answers.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Facebook criticized for ending ban on beheading videos
Facebook has recently announced that it will end its ban on beheading videos. Within hours after announcing that it was lifting its ban, it was criticized for its new policy. This change caused such an uproar that even British Prime Minister mentioned his dismay about it.
Facebook is a private entity and if you want to utilize its platform you need to play by its rules. It creates policies to drive as much traffic to its web site as possible. The more users/eyeballs the more advertising dollars. The more advertising dollars it generates the more profits that may be sent to its stockholders. Facebook is not in the privacy and censorship business but in the digital monetization business.
Parents and politicians need to understand that Facebook was not created as a sanitary place for kids to "hang out". Facebook was created by Mark Zuckerberg to encourage Harvard college students to meet and interact with other college students to do "grown up things". The sooner people realize this the better.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Facebook is a private entity and if you want to utilize its platform you need to play by its rules. It creates policies to drive as much traffic to its web site as possible. The more users/eyeballs the more advertising dollars. The more advertising dollars it generates the more profits that may be sent to its stockholders. Facebook is not in the privacy and censorship business but in the digital monetization business.
Parents and politicians need to understand that Facebook was not created as a sanitary place for kids to "hang out". Facebook was created by Mark Zuckerberg to encourage Harvard college students to meet and interact with other college students to do "grown up things". The sooner people realize this the better.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Will Social Media Crowdsourcing Catch The Boston Marathon Terrorists?
The Boston Marathon terrorist bombing was a cowardly act that killed at least 3 people, caused at least 13 people to lose limbs, and hospitalized 183. This terrorist act should remind us that post 9/11 there are still threats to democracy and our way of life.
While our nation mourns this terrible tragedy, law enforcement officials are hard at work trying to capture the perpetrators of this dastardly act. One of the tools that the police are utilizing in their hunt for the terrorists is social media crowdsourcing. According to Wikipedia, crowdsourcing "is the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people, and especially from an online community". Will social media be able to quicken the pace to identity and then capture the perpetrators of this tragedy?
Facebook, Google, and Microsoft have each been fined and/or forced to change their practices because some of their activities have been found to violate state and/or federal law/regulations. While some of these practices have raised the angst of regulators and/or privacy advocates the technology of these companies may also help catch the Boston Marathon Terrorists.
Facebook has been utilized by Massachusetts authorities to catch criminals. Google Earth has been used to solve various crimes. Microsoft worked with the New York City Police Department to develop a counter-terrorism and crime prevention system. While some of these technologies may be leading us closer to a surveillance state they may also help prevent terrorism and catch criminals.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
While our nation mourns this terrible tragedy, law enforcement officials are hard at work trying to capture the perpetrators of this dastardly act. One of the tools that the police are utilizing in their hunt for the terrorists is social media crowdsourcing. According to Wikipedia, crowdsourcing "is the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people, and especially from an online community". Will social media be able to quicken the pace to identity and then capture the perpetrators of this tragedy?
Facebook, Google, and Microsoft have each been fined and/or forced to change their practices because some of their activities have been found to violate state and/or federal law/regulations. While some of these practices have raised the angst of regulators and/or privacy advocates the technology of these companies may also help catch the Boston Marathon Terrorists.
Facebook has been utilized by Massachusetts authorities to catch criminals. Google Earth has been used to solve various crimes. Microsoft worked with the New York City Police Department to develop a counter-terrorism and crime prevention system. While some of these technologies may be leading us closer to a surveillance state they may also help prevent terrorism and catch criminals.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Monday, March 4, 2013
White House Says: Unlocking Cell Phones Should Be Legal
Should it be legal to unlock your cell phone? It was up until earlier this year. However, due to a ruling by the Library of Congress that was based on a new interpretation of the DMCA it is now against the law to unlock your legally bought subsidized cell phone.
Last month, a petition that was started on the White House's web site received more than 100,000 e-signatures to request that that ruling be changed. Today, the White House responded and stated that unlocking cell phones should be legal.
Once a consumer has fulfilled his contractual obligations to a service provider for a subsidized cell phone why shouldn't he be able to utilize his cell phone on another carrier? When someone buys a new car and is finished paying off any outstanding loans on it he is able to generally sell or utilize the vehicle in any manner that suits his purpose. This includes updating the car's engines and internal mechanics. Therefore, why shouldn't cell phone owners have the same rights?
While the White House and the FCC's acknowledgement that this is a matter that may need a legislative resolution is good news; changing the law will take more than a couple of announcements and/or blog posts.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Last month, a petition that was started on the White House's web site received more than 100,000 e-signatures to request that that ruling be changed. Today, the White House responded and stated that unlocking cell phones should be legal.
Once a consumer has fulfilled his contractual obligations to a service provider for a subsidized cell phone why shouldn't he be able to utilize his cell phone on another carrier? When someone buys a new car and is finished paying off any outstanding loans on it he is able to generally sell or utilize the vehicle in any manner that suits his purpose. This includes updating the car's engines and internal mechanics. Therefore, why shouldn't cell phone owners have the same rights?
While the White House and the FCC's acknowledgement that this is a matter that may need a legislative resolution is good news; changing the law will take more than a couple of announcements and/or blog posts.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Maryland's Facebook Username and Password Law is a Win For Employers, Employees, and Job Applicants
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed into law today legislation that makes Maryland the first state to ban employers from requiring employees or job applicants to provide access to their personal digital/social media accounts. While Maryland is the first state to enact this type of legislation, California along with other states and the federal government may soon follow Maryland's lead.
Senate Bill 433 is a huge win for the business community because it may provide Maryland businesses with a legal liability shield from plaintiffs who may allege that businesses have a legal duty to monitor their employees' password protected digital content. Unfortunately, some Maryland business groups have underestimated the tremendous win that SB 433 is for the business community. This groundbreaking law may collectively save Maryland businesses millions of dollars a year in costs to monitor their employees' personal digital accounts. In addition, this law may save Maryland businesses millions of dollars per year on cyber liability insurance premiums that would accompany a duty to monitor employees in the digital/social media space.
With access comes responsibility. Since Maryland businesses will not have access to their employees' personal digital content they will not become responsible for their employees' personal social media behavior. Employers do not have a duty to monitor everything their employees do in the privacy of their real world homes so employers do not want to create a duty to monitor their employees in their digital homes.
Do businesses want to have access to content that may demonstrate that an employee is a member of a protected class? There already is a lawsuit alleging "Facebook Like Discrimination". In this lawsuit, a former federal employee alleges that he was discriminated against because his supervisor became aware that he "Facebook Liked" a page that may have indicated his sexual orientation. Therefore, this new law may save employers millions of dollars per year in legal fees and judgments that may accompany access to an employee's personal digital content.
This legislation is also a major victory for employees and job applicants. A Maryland employer may no longer ask employees or job applicants to provide access to their personal digital or social media accounts. For example, during a job interview an employer may not request an applicant log into their personal Facebook account or to "Facebook Friend" a manager. In addition, an employer may not require an employee provide access to their personal password protected digital accounts.
Job applicants and employees must understand that they should still be careful about the content they post online, utilize the proper privacy settings, and carefully screen who they "Friend" online. This is a watershed moment for both the business community and digital privacy. I hope that other states along with the federal government follow Maryland's lead to enact legislation that demonstrates an understanding of the legal and public policy implications of the Social Media Age.
(Full Disclosure: I was not paid for my work on this legislation. I worked on this legislation because I want to protect employers, employees, and job applicants from unforeseen legal issues that may arise due to a lack of understanding of the public policy and legal implications of social media usage. Therefore, I was in constant contact with Maryland Senator Ronald Young and Maryland Delegate Shawn Tarrant to work with them to create a common sense solution that protects the interests of employers, employees, and job applicants.)
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Senate Bill 433 is a huge win for the business community because it may provide Maryland businesses with a legal liability shield from plaintiffs who may allege that businesses have a legal duty to monitor their employees' password protected digital content. Unfortunately, some Maryland business groups have underestimated the tremendous win that SB 433 is for the business community. This groundbreaking law may collectively save Maryland businesses millions of dollars a year in costs to monitor their employees' personal digital accounts. In addition, this law may save Maryland businesses millions of dollars per year on cyber liability insurance premiums that would accompany a duty to monitor employees in the digital/social media space.
With access comes responsibility. Since Maryland businesses will not have access to their employees' personal digital content they will not become responsible for their employees' personal social media behavior. Employers do not have a duty to monitor everything their employees do in the privacy of their real world homes so employers do not want to create a duty to monitor their employees in their digital homes.
Do businesses want to have access to content that may demonstrate that an employee is a member of a protected class? There already is a lawsuit alleging "Facebook Like Discrimination". In this lawsuit, a former federal employee alleges that he was discriminated against because his supervisor became aware that he "Facebook Liked" a page that may have indicated his sexual orientation. Therefore, this new law may save employers millions of dollars per year in legal fees and judgments that may accompany access to an employee's personal digital content.
This legislation is also a major victory for employees and job applicants. A Maryland employer may no longer ask employees or job applicants to provide access to their personal digital or social media accounts. For example, during a job interview an employer may not request an applicant log into their personal Facebook account or to "Facebook Friend" a manager. In addition, an employer may not require an employee provide access to their personal password protected digital accounts.
Job applicants and employees must understand that they should still be careful about the content they post online, utilize the proper privacy settings, and carefully screen who they "Friend" online. This is a watershed moment for both the business community and digital privacy. I hope that other states along with the federal government follow Maryland's lead to enact legislation that demonstrates an understanding of the legal and public policy implications of the Social Media Age.
(Full Disclosure: I was not paid for my work on this legislation. I worked on this legislation because I want to protect employers, employees, and job applicants from unforeseen legal issues that may arise due to a lack of understanding of the public policy and legal implications of social media usage. Therefore, I was in constant contact with Maryland Senator Ronald Young and Maryland Delegate Shawn Tarrant to work with them to create a common sense solution that protects the interests of employers, employees, and job applicants.)
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Maryland: The First State To Protect our Social Media Privacy and Security
Maryland has become the first state to protect the social media and electronic account privacy and security of its citizens. The legislation is a win for employers and employees. The Maryland legislature said loud and clear that in these difficult times businesses should not be required to spend tens of thousands of dollars per year to hire social media monitoring companies to review their employees' password protected digital content. In order to become enacted, SB 433 still needs to be signed by Governor Martin O'Malley. Once it is has been signed, the legislation will not go into effect until October 1, 2012. Therefore, until this legislation becomes law nothing has changed in the sate of Maryland.
This legislation may also shield companies in Maryland from lawsuits that allege that a company failed to properly monitor their employees' private electronic content and from negligent social media monitoring lawsuits. The potential savings to Maryland businesses per year is tens of millions of dollars. In general, Maryland employees will now be protected against being required to turn their password protected digital content in order to obtain or keep a job.
I personally reached out to Facebook about Maryland's legislation and asked them for their support. I want to publicly thank Facebook for their assistance. To Facebook's credit, they came out strongly against employers and schools demanding access to password protected digital content on March 23, 2012. I am hopeful that Facebook along with other Internet companies will strongly support federal legislation that would protect both employees and students from having their electronic account privacy and security compromised by those who don't understand social media, the law, or public policy.
For most jobs, employees should not be required to provide access to their password protected electronic content. In addition, students at public schools should never be required to provide access to their password protected electronic content to their schools and/or social media monitoring companies such as UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, or Centrix Social.
(Full Disclosure: I was not paid for my work on this legislation. There is a tremendous lack of understanding about the legal and public policy issues inherent in the Social Media Age and I want to protect employers, employees, job applicants, schools, students, student applicants, and taxpayers from unforeseen legal issues that may arise. Therefore, I was in constant contact with Maryland State Senator Ronald Young and Maryland State Delegate Shawn Tarrant to work with them to create a common sense solution to these problems.)
To learn how social media intersects with the law 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 legislation may also shield companies in Maryland from lawsuits that allege that a company failed to properly monitor their employees' private electronic content and from negligent social media monitoring lawsuits. The potential savings to Maryland businesses per year is tens of millions of dollars. In general, Maryland employees will now be protected against being required to turn their password protected digital content in order to obtain or keep a job.
I personally reached out to Facebook about Maryland's legislation and asked them for their support. I want to publicly thank Facebook for their assistance. To Facebook's credit, they came out strongly against employers and schools demanding access to password protected digital content on March 23, 2012. I am hopeful that Facebook along with other Internet companies will strongly support federal legislation that would protect both employees and students from having their electronic account privacy and security compromised by those who don't understand social media, the law, or public policy.
For most jobs, employees should not be required to provide access to their password protected electronic content. In addition, students at public schools should never be required to provide access to their password protected electronic content to their schools and/or social media monitoring companies such as UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, or Centrix Social.
On February 20, 2011, I publicly stated that this issue, "may one day be decided by the courts and/or state legislatures and/or Congress." I am proud to have successfully lobbied Maryland to pass this groundbreaking legislation. I have discussed these troubling issues with multiple state legislators across the country and federal officials. I am hopeful that more states and the federal government pass similar legislation. I urge everyone to lobby their representatives in their state legislatures and in Congress to pass bipartisan legislation that protects the personal electronic privacy and security rights of employees and students and provides the business community with bright lines rules that will protect them against social media lawsuits.
(Full Disclosure: I was not paid for my work on this legislation. There is a tremendous lack of understanding about the legal and public policy issues inherent in the Social Media Age and I want to protect employers, employees, job applicants, schools, students, student applicants, and taxpayers from unforeseen legal issues that may arise. Therefore, I was in constant contact with Maryland State Senator Ronald Young and Maryland State Delegate Shawn Tarrant to work with them to create a common sense solution to these problems.)
To learn how social media intersects with the law 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, March 16, 2012
Dharun Ravi is Found Guilty of Tampering With Evidence For Tweet Deletion
Breaking news. Dharun Ravi has been found guilty of tampering with evidence because he deleted at least one tweet. I first wrote about his case on May 1, 2011. According to the New Jersey Star here is a breakdown of the verdict.
This case should be a wake up call for everyone who utilizes social media, text messages, email, and other digital platforms that your online activities are just as important if not more important than your real world activities because of the digital footprints that are created.
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 case should be a wake up call for everyone who utilizes social media, text messages, email, and other digital platforms that your online activities are just as important if not more important than your real world activities because of the digital footprints that are created.
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.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Congress May Update the Video Privacy Protection Act
Congress may update the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act because Netflix wants to build a Facebook application that may enable consumers to more easily share their movie choices and opinions. HR2471 may only benefit Netflix, Facebook, and third parties who may access the data. Netflix and Facebook users can already share their movie likes and dislikes online without any new legislation. Therefore, is there a reason to weaken a law that has protected the privacy of those living in the United States for more than 20 years?
As we have seen over and over again, data breaches occur frequently so it would be prudent to study this issue before passing a law that may have unintended side effects. Should Congress weaken a law that protects the personal privacy of more than 300 million people in the United States?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
As we have seen over and over again, data breaches occur frequently so it would be prudent to study this issue before passing a law that may have unintended side effects. Should Congress weaken a law that protects the personal privacy of more than 300 million people in the United States?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Klout's Algorithm Appears To Be Compromised By Social Media Credential Fraud
Is Klout's algorithm compromised by Social Media Credential Fraud? At this point, it appears that Klout's algorithm is unable to accurately measure influence because it is not able to accurately determine who has real online and/or real world influence due to Social Media Credential Fraud.
According to Klout's website, the factors in its algorithm include: "List inclusions, Follower/Follow Ratio, Followed Back %, Unique Senders, Unique Retweeters, Unique Commenters, Unique Likers, Influence of Followers, Influence of Retweeters and Mentioners, Influence of Friends, Influence of Likers and Commenters.
Follower/Follow Ratio which appears to be a major component of the algorithm is being manipulated by those practicing Social Media Credential Fraud. If the Follower/Follow Ratio can be manipulated, it appears that the Followed Back % is also compromised. On April 26, 2011, Klout's Public Relations Agency (Best Public Relations) informed me that Klout's website was recently relaunched. When I reviewed the relaunched website I noticed that the Follower/Follow Ratio and the Followed Back % were major components of their algorithm. Therefore, I immediately contacted Best Public Relations to let them know that Social Media Credential Fraud is affecting its client's ability to accurately claim that its service is able to measure one's online social influence.
Klout's PR firm responded back to me with a link to Klout's website that did not answer my question so I contacted them again to let them know that this is a very serious issue that has the ability to destroy Klout's credibility. I have not heard back from either Klout's PR firm or from Klout. Therefore, either Klout's PR firm did not relay my message to Klout's senior executives or they decided to look the other way about my concerns.
As Klout and other websites vie to become the modern day Nielsen Ratings for the Social Media Age they will have to find a way to factor Social Media Credential Fraud into their algorithms. Klout needs to follow Google's lead to penalize those who try to game their algorithm. Last year, a company called DecorMyEyes gamed Google's search rankings by intentionally encouraging bad publicity so that the company could obtain a high organic ranking on Google. After a New York Times article on this practice, Google updated its algorithm. Earlier this year, JC Penney was accused of gaming Google's search rankings before last year's Christmas Season and Google subsequently penalized JC Penney for its behavior.
Since Google has the clout to punish those who it deems are acting in an unethical manner to increase their search engine ranking, Klout should do the same for those who are intentionally gaming its algorithm by participating in Social Media Credential Fraud and other forms of misleading and unethical social media behavior to increase their Klout score. I challenge Klout along with the other services who claim to be able to measure online influence to follow Google's lead in penalizing those who to try to game their system.
To learn more about this issue you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)