Last week, Kansas High School student Emma Sullivan used Twitter to discuss her feelings about Governor Sam Brownback. While participating in a Youth in Government Program Sullivan tweeted, "Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot.
Governor Brownback's office was not amused by the Tweet and Niomi Burget, assistant director of scheduling for the governor forwarded the tweet to Deborah Brown of the Shawnee Mission School District who then contacted Sullivan's principal. Sullivan was "asked" to write an apology to the governor but refused. Whether Sullivan was "asked" or "ordered" to write an apology to the governor is a question that needs to be answered since Sullivan was exercising her First Amendment right to criticize the governor.
Does Governor Brownback's office spend a significant amount of time and public resources on social media monitoring? Does his office spend taxpayer dollars to deploy a social media monitoring service? Or, does his office spend taxpayer dollars to do Twitter searches on a regular basis? What type of resources does his office allocate to social media monitoring and how does it determine when to react?
I told the Associated Press that this incident reflects poorly on the governor's office and that it needs to learn how to properly deal with social media related issues. It is disappointing that Governor Brownback's office still has not properly put this issue to bed.
Sullivan is now being cyberbullied because Governor Brownback's office did not understand how to respond to a negative tweet from a high school student. When Governor Brownback's office is interested in learning how to properly resolve this matter he may contact me at 301-652-3600 or at bshear@shearlaw.com.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Law in Social Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law in Social Media. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Did News of the World Also Hack Into MySpace Accounts?
Did News of the World or any other News Corp. entity utilize its position to obtain access to the MySpace accounts of those it targeted? This is a question that I have not heard asked but needs to be answered.
As the News Corp. scandal widens, it is tarnishing a media empire, destroying careers, and exposing the relationship between the tabloid media and the police in the United Kingdom. According to the New York Times, Rupert Murdoch's aides may have paid off those who had damaging information regarding the alleged hacking activities of some employees at News Corp.
Today's testimony by Rupert Murdoch in front of the UK Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee regarding the scandal did not appear to offer any bombshell revelations. However, according to ABC News the U.S. Justice Department is preparing to launch a preliminary investigation into News of the World's activities.
As with most scandals, the truth is somewhat murky and may never be known. However, this should be a wake up call to everyone who utilizes social media to store personal information and to communicate with others instead of a more secure platform.
Did News of the World reporters, editors, and/or management use their positions to try to obtain access to the MySpace accounts of their targets? I have not seen the list of those who allegedly had their phones hacked and I don't know how many of them had MySpace accounts but it would not surprise me if this avenue was explored after News Corp. bought MySpace during the Summer of 2005 (News Corp. recently sold MySpace).
I have previously discussed on numerous occasions the many privacy issues inherent with social media usage and the problems with trusting social media services. For example, Google and Facebook have had issues with employees allegedly accessing without proper authorization their users' data. As far as I know, none of these alleged incidents resulted in a prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
If News of the World employees targeted former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and allegedly violated the UK's Data Protection Act why wouldn't they also try to hack into the social media accounts of their targets?
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 the News Corp. scandal widens, it is tarnishing a media empire, destroying careers, and exposing the relationship between the tabloid media and the police in the United Kingdom. According to the New York Times, Rupert Murdoch's aides may have paid off those who had damaging information regarding the alleged hacking activities of some employees at News Corp.
Today's testimony by Rupert Murdoch in front of the UK Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee regarding the scandal did not appear to offer any bombshell revelations. However, according to ABC News the U.S. Justice Department is preparing to launch a preliminary investigation into News of the World's activities.
As with most scandals, the truth is somewhat murky and may never be known. However, this should be a wake up call to everyone who utilizes social media to store personal information and to communicate with others instead of a more secure platform.
Did News of the World reporters, editors, and/or management use their positions to try to obtain access to the MySpace accounts of their targets? I have not seen the list of those who allegedly had their phones hacked and I don't know how many of them had MySpace accounts but it would not surprise me if this avenue was explored after News Corp. bought MySpace during the Summer of 2005 (News Corp. recently sold MySpace).
I have previously discussed on numerous occasions the many privacy issues inherent with social media usage and the problems with trusting social media services. For example, Google and Facebook have had issues with employees allegedly accessing without proper authorization their users' data. As far as I know, none of these alleged incidents resulted in a prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
If News of the World employees targeted former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and allegedly violated the UK's Data Protection Act why wouldn't they also try to hack into the social media accounts of their targets?
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.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Maryland's Social Media Evidence Authentication Decision Provides Much Needed Guidance
Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals recently decided a case regarding authentication of social media accounts and the content contained therein. In Antoine Levar Griffin v. State of Maryland (No. 74, September Term 2010; filed April 28, 2011), the Court of Appeals held that"[t]the potential for abuse and manipulation of a social networking site by someone other than its purported creator and/or user leads to our conclusion that a printout of an image for such a site requires a greater degree of authentication than merely identifying the date of birth of the creator and her visage in a photograph on the site in order to reflect that [defendant] Ms. Barber was its creator and the author of the "snitches get stitches" language." (Griffin v. State, page 14 of the decision and page 16 of the linked pdf)
In the Maryland Daily Record, Maryland's main legal newspaper, there was a post on their Generation J.D. blog disagreeing with the Court of Appeals decision. The blog post states," Lawyers attempting to get social networking into evidence must contend with a group of judges who probably have never used a social networking site between the seven of them", and "The likelihood of fake pages and tampering is remote..." and "[g]iven the prevalence of social networking and the unlikelihood of false pages or fraudulent access..." and "[i]f any of them (Members of the Maryland Court of Appeals) have ever tried it (Facebook) out, or are active users, they are to be commended."
The above statements by John Cord demonstrate a lack of understanding of social media. Mr. Cord's post also states, " I'd love to be proven wrong." A less than 1 second Google search of "fake facebook profiles" shows that fake social media pages occur more often than than Mr. Cord states. It is very easy to create fake social media pages and have your social media account hacked. Fraudulent access to social media pages occurs more often then some may think.
In the Griffin case, the Maryland Court of Appeals spread their social media wings and demonstrated they understand some of the inherent dangers with unauthenticated social media pages. The Court was correct in determining that the prosecution should have utilized a different method to authenticate statements that appear on social media accounts and the Court offered several possible methods that may be acceptable.
A simple Google search and a thorough reading of the decision should have been done before criticizing Maryland's Court of Appeals and its judges. Before publicly criticizing a court and/or its judges, let alone the highest court in one's home state a lawyer should perform the utmost due diligence. #29 of Judge Dennis M. Sweeney's Rules For Courtroom Conduct states, "Remember that nastiness and rudeness rarely impresses the court or help your client. Courtesy is never inappropriate."
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In the Maryland Daily Record, Maryland's main legal newspaper, there was a post on their Generation J.D. blog disagreeing with the Court of Appeals decision. The blog post states," Lawyers attempting to get social networking into evidence must contend with a group of judges who probably have never used a social networking site between the seven of them", and "The likelihood of fake pages and tampering is remote..." and "[g]iven the prevalence of social networking and the unlikelihood of false pages or fraudulent access..." and "[i]f any of them (Members of the Maryland Court of Appeals) have ever tried it (Facebook) out, or are active users, they are to be commended."
The above statements by John Cord demonstrate a lack of understanding of social media. Mr. Cord's post also states, " I'd love to be proven wrong." A less than 1 second Google search of "fake facebook profiles" shows that fake social media pages occur more often than than Mr. Cord states. It is very easy to create fake social media pages and have your social media account hacked. Fraudulent access to social media pages occurs more often then some may think.
In the Griffin case, the Maryland Court of Appeals spread their social media wings and demonstrated they understand some of the inherent dangers with unauthenticated social media pages. The Court was correct in determining that the prosecution should have utilized a different method to authenticate statements that appear on social media accounts and the Court offered several possible methods that may be acceptable.
A simple Google search and a thorough reading of the decision should have been done before criticizing Maryland's Court of Appeals and its judges. Before publicly criticizing a court and/or its judges, let alone the highest court in one's home state a lawyer should perform the utmost due diligence. #29 of Judge Dennis M. Sweeney's Rules For Courtroom Conduct states, "Remember that nastiness and rudeness rarely impresses the court or help your client. Courtesy is never inappropriate."
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Tweet deletion may lead to tampering with evidence charges
May deleting a Tweet and/or sending out false and misleading social media posts result in tampering with evidence charges? In the case against Dharun Rhavi regarding his alleged role in roommate Tyler Clementi's apparent suicide, evidence tampering charges are based upon allegedly deleting a Tweet and creating false and/or misleading social media posts.
Clementi was a freshman at Rutgers University and it is believed he committed suicide last year by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. It is thought that Clementi was so distraught after he found out that Ravi had webcasted a sexual encounter that Clementi had with another man Clementi decided to take his own life.
After law enforcement started to investigate the circumstances surrounding Clementi's death, it is alleged that Ravi tampered with evidence by deleting one or more of his Tweets and making false and/or misleading social media posts in an effort to cover up the allegations that he may have invaded Clementi's privacy.
Deleting Tweets and/or trying to cover up one's online activity is futile. Whether its the Library of Congress preserving public Tweets or Google indexing an old cached version of a website or a post, once something is put online it can never be permanently removed from the Internet.
I believe evidence tampering charges based on social media usage will increase in the future as more people utilize social media and social media becomes a larger part of the judicial process. I have no idea if Ravi was deleting his Tweets to intentionally tamper with evidence of if he was just a scared college freshman who was afraid of the media scrutiny that was surrounding his roommate's death.
This is another example of how one's online activities are just as important, if not more so, than everything done off-line. Unfortunately, it appears that a few clicks of a mouse along with some ill-advised Tweets and other social media posts may have contributed to the suicide of young person.
In the Internet Age, a hidden web cam in the movie American Pie was a funny joke. In the Social Media Age, a hidden web cam is no laughing matter because billions of people may view what is streamed online and this may have unintended consequences.
This tragic case should be a wake up call to restart a national conversation on personal privacy. I believe social media education should be taught starting in elementary school. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) only protects children under the age of 13 so our children should be provided the tools necessary to successfully navigate the Social Media Age before they reach 13 years of age. If the lessons learned from this tragedy are not discussed with our children Tyler Clementi will have died in vain.
To learn how to protect your privacy and your children in the Social Media Age you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Clementi was a freshman at Rutgers University and it is believed he committed suicide last year by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. It is thought that Clementi was so distraught after he found out that Ravi had webcasted a sexual encounter that Clementi had with another man Clementi decided to take his own life.
After law enforcement started to investigate the circumstances surrounding Clementi's death, it is alleged that Ravi tampered with evidence by deleting one or more of his Tweets and making false and/or misleading social media posts in an effort to cover up the allegations that he may have invaded Clementi's privacy.
Deleting Tweets and/or trying to cover up one's online activity is futile. Whether its the Library of Congress preserving public Tweets or Google indexing an old cached version of a website or a post, once something is put online it can never be permanently removed from the Internet.
I believe evidence tampering charges based on social media usage will increase in the future as more people utilize social media and social media becomes a larger part of the judicial process. I have no idea if Ravi was deleting his Tweets to intentionally tamper with evidence of if he was just a scared college freshman who was afraid of the media scrutiny that was surrounding his roommate's death.
This is another example of how one's online activities are just as important, if not more so, than everything done off-line. Unfortunately, it appears that a few clicks of a mouse along with some ill-advised Tweets and other social media posts may have contributed to the suicide of young person.
In the Internet Age, a hidden web cam in the movie American Pie was a funny joke. In the Social Media Age, a hidden web cam is no laughing matter because billions of people may view what is streamed online and this may have unintended consequences.
This tragic case should be a wake up call to restart a national conversation on personal privacy. I believe social media education should be taught starting in elementary school. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) only protects children under the age of 13 so our children should be provided the tools necessary to successfully navigate the Social Media Age before they reach 13 years of age. If the lessons learned from this tragedy are not discussed with our children Tyler Clementi will have died in vain.
To learn how to protect your privacy and your children in the Social Media Age you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Will Your Social Media Expert's Advice Violate the FTC Advertising Regulations Part II
An idea attributed to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels goes something along the lines, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually believe it. Unfortunately, there are some people who practice this philosophy in the social media marketing world.
Last week, I wrote about a self-described social media marketing expert ("Expert #1) who actively follows tens of thousands of people and then once he receives a follow back he un-follows them in order to increase his followers to following ratio so it looks like he is a rock star or professional athlete. This practice is known as Social Media Credential Fraud.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. On April 1, 2011, this self-described social media marketing expert was following 7,000 people and had 41,009 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,523 people and has only 41,040 followers. Therefore, in a week he has followed 523 more people and obtained only 31 followers in return. In almost 3 months, he has followed 3,106 more people and lost 9 followers. His Return on Follow (ROF) is not what I would call "expert like". If you extrapolate these findings over a year you may realize the depth of this deception.
There is another excellent example of Social Media Credential Fraud that I would like to share because a friend of mine recently told me I should follow another self described social media expert. As soon as I saw the name of this person I said to myself I think this person has played the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game with me.
I was right. On 2/16/10, another self described social media marketing expert, "Expert #2," had the following stats: 11,290 followers; and following 11,390. Therefore, he had to follow 100 more people than were following him back. On 6/5/2010, "Expert#2's stats were: 12,277 followers; and 12,748 following. He had to follow 471 more people than were following him back. As of this writing, "Expert #2's stats are: 14,424 followers, and 5,243 following. All of a sudden, "Expert #2" found his social media wings.
Expert #2 now has a Twitter account that he feels better reflects his persona so it may enable him to sell social media marketing services. Expert #2 recently advertised to law firms, "Blogging and Social Media Package Only $1,800 Per Month" and "This program has a value of $4,000 per month!" and "P.P.S. We only have room for 10 new clients in this program at this low price." "Expert #2's social media assistant also plays the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game. On 5/27/10, Expert #2's social media assistant's stats were: 9,458 followers, and 9,588 following. As of this writing, the social media assistant's stats are: 10,252 followers, and 5,535 following. What a great turnaround. How did this happen?
Oh, I forgot to tell you that Expert #1 and Expert #2 are good friends. How do I know this? Expert #1 has Tweeted that they are are good friends. Therefore, are they sharing with each other tips on how to perpetrate Social Media Credential Fraud?
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Last week, I wrote about a self-described social media marketing expert ("Expert #1) who actively follows tens of thousands of people and then once he receives a follow back he un-follows them in order to increase his followers to following ratio so it looks like he is a rock star or professional athlete. This practice is known as Social Media Credential Fraud.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. On April 1, 2011, this self-described social media marketing expert was following 7,000 people and had 41,009 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,523 people and has only 41,040 followers. Therefore, in a week he has followed 523 more people and obtained only 31 followers in return. In almost 3 months, he has followed 3,106 more people and lost 9 followers. His Return on Follow (ROF) is not what I would call "expert like". If you extrapolate these findings over a year you may realize the depth of this deception.
There is another excellent example of Social Media Credential Fraud that I would like to share because a friend of mine recently told me I should follow another self described social media expert. As soon as I saw the name of this person I said to myself I think this person has played the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game with me.
I was right. On 2/16/10, another self described social media marketing expert, "Expert #2," had the following stats: 11,290 followers; and following 11,390. Therefore, he had to follow 100 more people than were following him back. On 6/5/2010, "Expert#2's stats were: 12,277 followers; and 12,748 following. He had to follow 471 more people than were following him back. As of this writing, "Expert #2's stats are: 14,424 followers, and 5,243 following. All of a sudden, "Expert #2" found his social media wings.
Expert #2 now has a Twitter account that he feels better reflects his persona so it may enable him to sell social media marketing services. Expert #2 recently advertised to law firms, "Blogging and Social Media Package Only $1,800 Per Month" and "This program has a value of $4,000 per month!" and "P.P.S. We only have room for 10 new clients in this program at this low price." "Expert #2's social media assistant also plays the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game. On 5/27/10, Expert #2's social media assistant's stats were: 9,458 followers, and 9,588 following. As of this writing, the social media assistant's stats are: 10,252 followers, and 5,535 following. What a great turnaround. How did this happen?
Oh, I forgot to tell you that Expert #1 and Expert #2 are good friends. How do I know this? Expert #1 has Tweeted that they are are good friends. Therefore, are they sharing with each other tips on how to perpetrate Social Media Credential Fraud?
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Will Your Social Media Expert's Advice Violate the FTC Advertising Regulations?
Will your social media expert's advice and/or actions violate the Federal Trade Commission's Advertising Regulations? This is a question you may want to answer before you engage a social media guru for your company.
Social Media Credential Fraud is a growing problem. Social Media Credential Fraud may occur when someone utilizes social media to create a false impression that they are an expert in their profession for commercial gain. Under the FTC's Advertising Regulations, it is crystal clear that engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices is unlawful.
I believe it is important to discuss this issue again because a self-described "social media expert" started following me again today on Twitter. This "social media expert" followed me last year and then as soon as I followed him back he un-followed me. Of course, I un-followed him back because I only followed him in the first place because he initially followed me. This social media expert's Twitter feed mostly consists of public conversations with a small group of his friends and/or fellow legal marketers, strategic Foursquare check-ins, and re-posts of his old articles and blog posts. Every once in awhile he will post a link to an interesting article written by someone else; unfortunately, he mostly clogs his Twitter feed with useless and self-serving information so I will not be following him back. Since I will not be following him back, he will un-follow me in the near future. I guarantee it.
This "social media expert" is desperate to keep his followers above 41,000. I mean Muammar Gadhafi desperate. His whole persona is based on the impression that he is a social media expert and has a large organic Twitter following. If he did not practice Social Media Credential Fraud he would be following tens of thousands of more people than are following him back. Last year, he wrote a blog post that said something along the lines, "I un-followed almost 50,000" people. In this rationalizing post, he stated that he could no longer focus on new followers so it was time to do a mass un-follow.
Does this "social media expert" think he is Lady Gaga or Britney Spears? Lady Gaga follows 144,000+ people and Britney Spears follows more than 415,000 people on Twitter. Would Lady Gaga or Britney Spears ever un-follow 50,000 people to better focus on their most die hard fans? Absolutely not. Therefore, this self described "social media expert's" explanation why he did a mass un-follow is not believable. The "social media expert" has un-followed at least 50,000 people to hide the fact that he needs to first follow tens of thousands of people before some of those people he initially followed follow him back.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,000 people and has only 41,009 followers. In approximately, 2.5 months this "social media expert" has followed 2,583 more people but has lost 40 followers. This statistic demonstrates that this person is a "social media expert" at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
If your social media expert is personally engaging in activity that may violate the FTC's Advertising Regulations you may want to ask yourself will he advise my company to do anything unlawful or unethical? If a "social media expert" appears to have great "social media credentials" take a look beyond the numbers to determine how they were achieved. Perform your due diligence and fully review all social media activity. If a "social media expert" appears to have celebrity like Twitter "Following to Followers" figures there is a good possibility that Social Media Credential Fraud is involved.
To learn more about social media ethics and to learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Social Media Credential Fraud is a growing problem. Social Media Credential Fraud may occur when someone utilizes social media to create a false impression that they are an expert in their profession for commercial gain. Under the FTC's Advertising Regulations, it is crystal clear that engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices is unlawful.
I believe it is important to discuss this issue again because a self-described "social media expert" started following me again today on Twitter. This "social media expert" followed me last year and then as soon as I followed him back he un-followed me. Of course, I un-followed him back because I only followed him in the first place because he initially followed me. This social media expert's Twitter feed mostly consists of public conversations with a small group of his friends and/or fellow legal marketers, strategic Foursquare check-ins, and re-posts of his old articles and blog posts. Every once in awhile he will post a link to an interesting article written by someone else; unfortunately, he mostly clogs his Twitter feed with useless and self-serving information so I will not be following him back. Since I will not be following him back, he will un-follow me in the near future. I guarantee it.
This "social media expert" is desperate to keep his followers above 41,000. I mean Muammar Gadhafi desperate. His whole persona is based on the impression that he is a social media expert and has a large organic Twitter following. If he did not practice Social Media Credential Fraud he would be following tens of thousands of more people than are following him back. Last year, he wrote a blog post that said something along the lines, "I un-followed almost 50,000" people. In this rationalizing post, he stated that he could no longer focus on new followers so it was time to do a mass un-follow.
Does this "social media expert" think he is Lady Gaga or Britney Spears? Lady Gaga follows 144,000+ people and Britney Spears follows more than 415,000 people on Twitter. Would Lady Gaga or Britney Spears ever un-follow 50,000 people to better focus on their most die hard fans? Absolutely not. Therefore, this self described "social media expert's" explanation why he did a mass un-follow is not believable. The "social media expert" has un-followed at least 50,000 people to hide the fact that he needs to first follow tens of thousands of people before some of those people he initially followed follow him back.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,000 people and has only 41,009 followers. In approximately, 2.5 months this "social media expert" has followed 2,583 more people but has lost 40 followers. This statistic demonstrates that this person is a "social media expert" at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
If your social media expert is personally engaging in activity that may violate the FTC's Advertising Regulations you may want to ask yourself will he advise my company to do anything unlawful or unethical? If a "social media expert" appears to have great "social media credentials" take a look beyond the numbers to determine how they were achieved. Perform your due diligence and fully review all social media activity. If a "social media expert" appears to have celebrity like Twitter "Following to Followers" figures there is a good possibility that Social Media Credential Fraud is involved.
To learn more about social media ethics and to learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Maryland's Social Media User Name and Privacy Legislation
The premise behind Maryland's proposed User Name and Password Privacy Protection Bill (Senate Bill 971) is to protect the personal privacy of job applicants and employees in the State of Maryland. The bill was drafted because a Maryland Corrections Officer was asked (requested/demanded depending upon whose perspective you are coming from) to turn over his Facebook user name and password during an interview to go back to work after a personal leave of absence.
Maryland Senate Bill 971 was introduced and read for the first time on March 7, 2011, a little over 2 weeks after the incident that prompted the bill received widespread media attention. I believe that this bill will start a much needed conversation on privacy in the Social Media Age.
Maryland Senate Bill 971 was introduced and read for the first time on March 7, 2011, a little over 2 weeks after the incident that prompted the bill received widespread media attention. I believe that this bill will start a much needed conversation on privacy in the Social Media Age.
To learn how Maryland Senate Bill 971 or other social media legislation may affect your business you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Florida Judge Orders Debt Collector Not To Use Social Media To Contact Debtor
Florida Judge W. Douglas Baird ordered Mark One Financial LLC not to utilize social media when trying to contact Melanie Beacham over an alleged debt of $362. Ms. Beacham sued the debt collector in 2010 for violating her privacy.
Debt collectors have been using social media to contact debtors for several years. However, only in the past year has this activity been deemed news worthy by the mainstream press.
The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) appears to be silent on if and how debt collectors may utilize social media to collect on unpaid debts. Under some state laws, debt collectors are not allowed to publicize one's debts. Generally, if you can't act in a certain manner in the real world that same behavior in the virtual world is not acceptable.
In Sohns v. Bramacint, (Civil No. 09-1225; October 1, 2010), a United States District Court of Minnesota case, a debt collector allegedly accessed a debtor's MySpace page to intimidate the debtor. The debtor alleged that the debt collector had violated the FDCPA and won summary judgment based on the totality of the methods the debt collector utilized.
These types of cases will only increase in the future as more debt collectors actively utilize social media in order to collect on unpaid debts. Therefore, I advise everyone to be very careful about what they post online. You never know who is following your Facebook and MySpace posts, your Tweets, your blog posts, and/or your LinkedIn Tripits.
To learn how to protect your online content from prying eyes you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Debt collectors have been using social media to contact debtors for several years. However, only in the past year has this activity been deemed news worthy by the mainstream press.
The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) appears to be silent on if and how debt collectors may utilize social media to collect on unpaid debts. Under some state laws, debt collectors are not allowed to publicize one's debts. Generally, if you can't act in a certain manner in the real world that same behavior in the virtual world is not acceptable.
In Sohns v. Bramacint, (Civil No. 09-1225; October 1, 2010), a United States District Court of Minnesota case, a debt collector allegedly accessed a debtor's MySpace page to intimidate the debtor. The debtor alleged that the debt collector had violated the FDCPA and won summary judgment based on the totality of the methods the debt collector utilized.
These types of cases will only increase in the future as more debt collectors actively utilize social media in order to collect on unpaid debts. Therefore, I advise everyone to be very careful about what they post online. You never know who is following your Facebook and MySpace posts, your Tweets, your blog posts, and/or your LinkedIn Tripits.
To learn how to protect your online content from prying eyes you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Courtney Love Agrees to Pay $430,000 in Twitter Defamation Case
Courtney Love has agreed to pay Dawn Simorangkir $430,000 over allegations that Love tweeted false and defamtory statements about Simorangkir in 2009. Love was upset over a $4,000 clothing payment to Simorangkir and Tweeted about the disagreement in a series of Tweets that made headlines.
My hope is that this case will put people on notice to be careful about what is posted online because there may be legal consequences for your Tweets, Facebook and MySpace posts, and any other user generated content that is created.
To learn more about the legal and entertainment ramifications of your Tweets or other social media posts you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
My hope is that this case will put people on notice to be careful about what is posted online because there may be legal consequences for your Tweets, Facebook and MySpace posts, and any other user generated content that is created.
To learn more about the legal and entertainment ramifications of your Tweets or other social media posts you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Update On Maryland's Division of Corrections Demands Applicants Provide Facebook Usernames and Passwords During Interviews
Maryland's Division of Corrections (DOC) has suspended its policy that requested applicants "voluntarily" provide their Facebook user name and password as part of a background check. According to the Washington Post, the policy was approximately a year old.
For the overwhelming majority of jobs in the public and private sector employers should not request/demand an applicant's and/or employee's social media user names and/or passwords. Therefore, I would generally advise against management and/or a union asking their employees and/or applicants and/or members to provide their personal social media account user names and/or passwords.
To learn more about the legal ramifications of social media policies you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
For the overwhelming majority of jobs in the public and private sector employers should not request/demand an applicant's and/or employee's social media user names and/or passwords. Therefore, I would generally advise against management and/or a union asking their employees and/or applicants and/or members to provide their personal social media account user names and/or passwords.
To learn more about the legal ramifications of social media policies you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Maryland's Division of Corrections Demands Applicants Provide Facebook Usernames and Passwords During Interviews
Some employers and other institutions are quietly demanding that employees and applicants turn over their social media user names and passwords as part of the background check process. According to a story in The Atlantic, Maryland Division of Corrections (DOC) Officer Robert Collins alleged that the State of Maryland recently demanded that during a re-certification interview he was required to provide his employer his personal Facebook user name and password.
Mr. Collins turned over the requested information because he wanted to keep his job but then contacted the ACLU about his experience. According to the ACLU, there may be some issues under the Federal Stored Communications Act and Maryland state law that may have been violated with this demand. Whether demanding an employee or applicant to turn over his Facebook login information is legal is a question that may one day be decided by the courts and/or state legislatures and/or Congress.
Under Section 4.8 of Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (Revision Date: October 4, 2010) it states, "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account." Turning over one's Facebook login information to an employer or any other third party may violate Facebook's Terms of Use. An employee and/or job applicant may be put in a Catch-22: turn over your Facebook access information or lose your job and/or you won't be offered a job. However, if you turn over your Facebook access information to a third party, Facebook may terminate your Facebook account. Interesting dilemma.
This is not the first time I have heard about this type of situation and I predict there will be a tremendous amount of litigation on this point in the future. In 2009, the City of Bozeman, Montana tried to force its job applicants to turn over their social media account(s) access information. After a national uproar this policy was discontinued. However, this background check approach is still being tried across the country.
While at a conference last year, one of the participants told me that during a college admissions interview of a neighbor's son, the applicant was requested to turn over his Facebook user name and password. The college applicant had no problem turning over his "official Facebook user name and password" because the high school student had two Facebook accounts.
This high school student's "official Facebook account" that was turned over to an admissions interviewer on the spot was sterile and was the one that his parents had friended him on to keep track of his online activity. The applicant's real Facebook account contained information that most likely would have kept the applicant from being accepted to his dream school or any other academic institution. These demands are generally targeted at student-athletes. Some student-athletes at major college sports powerhouses are being required to Facebook friend coaches and/or install spying software onto their personal social media accounts/computers.
Having more than one Facebook account is becoming more common and I encourage some of my clients to have multiple Facebook accounts in case they are ever "requested" to turn over their Facebook user name and password. I recommend that most employers in both the private and public sector review and update their personnel policies to ensure that they properly address social media usage. There is no one size fits all policy so employers may want to work with their employees, human resource departments, and their lawyers to draft appropriate social media policies.
New York City's Police Department has a different culture than Andy Griffith's Mayberry Police Department so I would not recommend Mayberry copying the NYPD's social media policy because what may be acceptable in NYC may not be so in Mayberry and vice versa. In addition, different departments within a government may have different social media policy needs. For example, The City of New York Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre, and Broadcasting may have different needs than NYPD's Counterterrorism Units.
Therefore, it is important that employers work with their employees to create fair and reasonable social media policies that protect an employee's right to privacy and balance that need with an employer's right to know. I predict that a case(s) regarding these issues will eventually reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
To learn more about the legal, political, and business ramifications of social media policies you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Mr. Collins turned over the requested information because he wanted to keep his job but then contacted the ACLU about his experience. According to the ACLU, there may be some issues under the Federal Stored Communications Act and Maryland state law that may have been violated with this demand. Whether demanding an employee or applicant to turn over his Facebook login information is legal is a question that may one day be decided by the courts and/or state legislatures and/or Congress.
Under Section 4.8 of Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (Revision Date: October 4, 2010) it states, "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account." Turning over one's Facebook login information to an employer or any other third party may violate Facebook's Terms of Use. An employee and/or job applicant may be put in a Catch-22: turn over your Facebook access information or lose your job and/or you won't be offered a job. However, if you turn over your Facebook access information to a third party, Facebook may terminate your Facebook account. Interesting dilemma.
This is not the first time I have heard about this type of situation and I predict there will be a tremendous amount of litigation on this point in the future. In 2009, the City of Bozeman, Montana tried to force its job applicants to turn over their social media account(s) access information. After a national uproar this policy was discontinued. However, this background check approach is still being tried across the country.
While at a conference last year, one of the participants told me that during a college admissions interview of a neighbor's son, the applicant was requested to turn over his Facebook user name and password. The college applicant had no problem turning over his "official Facebook user name and password" because the high school student had two Facebook accounts.
This high school student's "official Facebook account" that was turned over to an admissions interviewer on the spot was sterile and was the one that his parents had friended him on to keep track of his online activity. The applicant's real Facebook account contained information that most likely would have kept the applicant from being accepted to his dream school or any other academic institution. These demands are generally targeted at student-athletes. Some student-athletes at major college sports powerhouses are being required to Facebook friend coaches and/or install spying software onto their personal social media accounts/computers.
Having more than one Facebook account is becoming more common and I encourage some of my clients to have multiple Facebook accounts in case they are ever "requested" to turn over their Facebook user name and password. I recommend that most employers in both the private and public sector review and update their personnel policies to ensure that they properly address social media usage. There is no one size fits all policy so employers may want to work with their employees, human resource departments, and their lawyers to draft appropriate social media policies.
New York City's Police Department has a different culture than Andy Griffith's Mayberry Police Department so I would not recommend Mayberry copying the NYPD's social media policy because what may be acceptable in NYC may not be so in Mayberry and vice versa. In addition, different departments within a government may have different social media policy needs. For example, The City of New York Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre, and Broadcasting may have different needs than NYPD's Counterterrorism Units.
Therefore, it is important that employers work with their employees to create fair and reasonable social media policies that protect an employee's right to privacy and balance that need with an employer's right to know. I predict that a case(s) regarding these issues will eventually reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
To learn more about the legal, political, and business ramifications of social media policies you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)