The state of Maryland continues to lead the way regarding social media and the law. Whether its creating social media election authority regulations or seminal case law on social media evidence authentication I am proud to say that my home state's elected leaders and judiciary have set the benchmark for the rest of the country to follow regarding social media and the law.
During this year's legislative session, Maryland Senate Bill 433 and House Bill 964 were introduced and if passed they will prohibit employers from requiring employees and applicants from disclosing their social media user names and passwords.
According to the synopsis on the Maryland Legislature's website of Senate Bill 433 it states:
Labor and Employment – User Name and Password Privacy Protection and Exclusions
"FOR the purpose of prohibiting an employer from requesting or requiring that an employee or applicant disclose any user name, password, or other means for accessing a personal account or service through certain electronic communications devices; prohibiting an employer from taking, or threatening to take, certain disciplinary actions for an employee’s refusal to disclose certain password and related information; prohibiting an employer from failing or refusing to hire an applicant as a result of the applicant’s refusal to disclose certain password and related information..."
According to the synopsis on the Maryland Legislature's website of House Bill 964 it states:
Labor and Employment – User Name and Password Privacy Protection
"FOR the purpose of prohibiting an employer from requesting or requiring that an employee or applicant disclose any user name, password, or other means for accessing a personal account or service through certain electronic communications devices; prohibiting an employer from taking, or threatening to take, certain disciplinary actions for an employee’s refusal to disclose certain password and related information; prohibiting an employer from failing or refusing to hire an applicant as a result of the applicant’s refusal to disclose certain password and related information..."
The legislation is a win-win for employers, employees, and taxpayers. The bills are designed to protect employee privacy while still enabling the securities and other regulated industries to comply with their strict compliance regulations.
I encourage everyone who reads this to reach out to Maryland's legislators to voice support for these bills and to lobby your state legislatures to pass similar legislation. These bills are a win for employers, employees, and taxpayers.
(Full Disclosure: I am not being paid for my work on this legislation. I believe that privacy rights still matter in the Social Media Age and I want to protect employers, employees, and taxpayers from unforeseen legal issues that may arise if these practices continue. Therefore, I have been in constant contact with Maryland Senator Ronald Young and Maryland Delegate Shawn Tarrant to work with them to create a common sense solution to this problem that protects the interests of employers, employees, and taxpayers.)
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.
Showing posts with label Maryland Social Media Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maryland Social Media Law. Show all posts
Thursday, March 8, 2012
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.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Will The FEC Regulate Social Media For the 2012 Election Cycle?
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) may need to regulate the use of social media for the 2012 election cycle. As I have repeated time and time again, I am not in favor of the government regulating every nook and cranny of our existance. However, this is not 1999 and we are no longer in the Internet Age. We are in the Social Media Age.
The Internet Age was about emailing and surfing the web. The Social Media Age is about conversation, engagement, and user generated content. Think Facebook, MySpace, Twitter,YouTube, and Foursquare for starters.
Under the FEC's October 2006 Special Notices on Political Ads and Soliticitations, public communications are:
•Broadcast, cable or satellite transmission;
•Newspaper;
•Magazine;
•Outdoor advertising facility (e.g., billboard);
•Mass mailing (defined as more than 500 pieces of mail matter of an identical or substantially similar nature within any 30-day period);
•Telephone banks (defined as more than 500 telephone calls of an identical or substantially similar nature within any 30-day period); or
•Any other general public political advertising. General public political advertising does not include Internet ads, except for communications placed for a fee on another person’s web site
Even though the FEC Internet and Communications Activity regulations were updated in June 2007 and appear to cover most Internet activity due to the language, "and any other form of communication distributed over the Internet", they were created before the widespread use of social media for political campaigns. (See page 64 of the Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for the Internet Communications Rulemaking). Therefore, I believe the time is right for the regulations to be updated again to reflect changes in technology. As the 2008 Presidential Election first demonstrated, social media has the power to elect a President and change the course of history due to its viral nature.
Until the widespread use of the Internet in the U.S. in the late 1990's, people obtained most of their information from television and print. In my opinion, some people already obtain most of their information from social media and this number will increase in the future. Since television, radio, and print election advertising generally has some type of disclosure requirement, I do not believe it would be burdensome to require disclosure requirements for a federal candidate's official campaign social media pages and accounts since social media is being used to advertise to potential voters. This requirement would ensure that voters know that a social media account is the actual candidate's and not a fake page. I am not in favor of the FEC creating new guidelines that may hamper free speech or make it economically burdensome or administratively difficult for candidates to utilize social media.
Earlier this year, the State of Maryland created model social media election regulations that may be easily adopted by other states for state elections and by the FEC for federal elections. I assisted the State of Maryland in drafting these regulations and input was received from Facebook, Yahoo!, AOL, and Google. Since Maryland's regulations received input from the social media industry and a social media lawyer, the final regulations were passed with near unanimous support.
In my opinion, social media will never replace personal candidate-voter interaction. However, social media adds another method to connect with voters that print and television communication does not. Therefore, due to the growing usage of social media the FEC should create social media election regulations based upon Maryland's model for the 2012 campaign cycle. I would be happy to provide assistance to the FEC when they are ready to draft federal social media election regulations.
To learn how to properly utilize social media for state and/or federal elections you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
The Internet Age was about emailing and surfing the web. The Social Media Age is about conversation, engagement, and user generated content. Think Facebook, MySpace, Twitter,YouTube, and Foursquare for starters.
Under the FEC's October 2006 Special Notices on Political Ads and Soliticitations, public communications are:
•Broadcast, cable or satellite transmission;
•Newspaper;
•Magazine;
•Outdoor advertising facility (e.g., billboard);
•Mass mailing (defined as more than 500 pieces of mail matter of an identical or substantially similar nature within any 30-day period);
•Telephone banks (defined as more than 500 telephone calls of an identical or substantially similar nature within any 30-day period); or
•Any other general public political advertising. General public political advertising does not include Internet ads, except for communications placed for a fee on another person’s web site
Even though the FEC Internet and Communications Activity regulations were updated in June 2007 and appear to cover most Internet activity due to the language, "and any other form of communication distributed over the Internet", they were created before the widespread use of social media for political campaigns. (See page 64 of the Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for the Internet Communications Rulemaking). Therefore, I believe the time is right for the regulations to be updated again to reflect changes in technology. As the 2008 Presidential Election first demonstrated, social media has the power to elect a President and change the course of history due to its viral nature.
Until the widespread use of the Internet in the U.S. in the late 1990's, people obtained most of their information from television and print. In my opinion, some people already obtain most of their information from social media and this number will increase in the future. Since television, radio, and print election advertising generally has some type of disclosure requirement, I do not believe it would be burdensome to require disclosure requirements for a federal candidate's official campaign social media pages and accounts since social media is being used to advertise to potential voters. This requirement would ensure that voters know that a social media account is the actual candidate's and not a fake page. I am not in favor of the FEC creating new guidelines that may hamper free speech or make it economically burdensome or administratively difficult for candidates to utilize social media.
Earlier this year, the State of Maryland created model social media election regulations that may be easily adopted by other states for state elections and by the FEC for federal elections. I assisted the State of Maryland in drafting these regulations and input was received from Facebook, Yahoo!, AOL, and Google. Since Maryland's regulations received input from the social media industry and a social media lawyer, the final regulations were passed with near unanimous support.
In my opinion, social media will never replace personal candidate-voter interaction. However, social media adds another method to connect with voters that print and television communication does not. Therefore, due to the growing usage of social media the FEC should create social media election regulations based upon Maryland's model for the 2012 campaign cycle. I would be happy to provide assistance to the FEC when they are ready to draft federal social media election regulations.
To learn how to properly utilize social media for state and/or federal elections you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
A Wall Street Journal Investigation Proves the Need For the Social Media Privacy Protection Act
A recent Wall Street Journal investigation found that some third party applications on Facebook and MySpace were both obtaining more personal data from the applications' users than they were allegedly allowed. This situation has been going on for a long time so I am not sure why this was such a shock to major media outlets. I have been writing about the need for stronger internal privacy controls by the major social media sites for months because of this issue.
On June 2, 2010, I blogged that Facebook/Disney's Tickets Together application was inherently dangerous. This application enables child molesters to know in advance where our children may be at a particular date and time. After Facebook/Disney launched the application, the New York Times wrote an extremely positive article about the application without fully understanding how the application works. Even after I pointed out how dangerous this application may be to our children, the New York Times dropped the ball and did not investigate this application or others. However, I am glad that the Wall Street Journal did the investigative reporting that was needed to demonstrate that some social media web sites may turn a blind eye to this troubling problem.
Earlier this year, Gawker reported that Google fired an engineer because the engineer allegedly accessed user accounts without authorization. The engineer allegedly accessed the accounts of young children. According to TechCrunch, this is the second time a Google engineer has been fired for unauthorized access of users' accounts. In that same TechCrunch article, it linked to a blog post that alleged that at least two Facebook employees have been fired for accessing its users' data.
I am loathe to articulate the need for further government regulation because the government has a hard time enforcing the laws already on its books and delivering some basic government services. For example, why can't the government settle on a secure and reliable method to vote? Electronic voting without a paper receipt that may be reviewed for a recount is too easily susceptible to hackers.
An easy solution to unauthorized data proliferation is to avoid putting your personal or professional information on a social media site. However, the social media companies want you to continue to "share" so they can monetize your data and users want to continue to "share" so they showcase themselves to others. There is no easy answer here but since the industry continues to fail miserably to enforce its own internal policies and does not have any real incentive to protect its users' data it may be time for Congress to act. Therefore, until the major social media companies demonstrate a real initiative to protect its users' personal data I strongly advocate for the passage of the Social Media Privacy Protection Act.
To learn how to protect and monetize your social media profile you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
On June 2, 2010, I blogged that Facebook/Disney's Tickets Together application was inherently dangerous. This application enables child molesters to know in advance where our children may be at a particular date and time. After Facebook/Disney launched the application, the New York Times wrote an extremely positive article about the application without fully understanding how the application works. Even after I pointed out how dangerous this application may be to our children, the New York Times dropped the ball and did not investigate this application or others. However, I am glad that the Wall Street Journal did the investigative reporting that was needed to demonstrate that some social media web sites may turn a blind eye to this troubling problem.
Earlier this year, Gawker reported that Google fired an engineer because the engineer allegedly accessed user accounts without authorization. The engineer allegedly accessed the accounts of young children. According to TechCrunch, this is the second time a Google engineer has been fired for unauthorized access of users' accounts. In that same TechCrunch article, it linked to a blog post that alleged that at least two Facebook employees have been fired for accessing its users' data.
I am loathe to articulate the need for further government regulation because the government has a hard time enforcing the laws already on its books and delivering some basic government services. For example, why can't the government settle on a secure and reliable method to vote? Electronic voting without a paper receipt that may be reviewed for a recount is too easily susceptible to hackers.
An easy solution to unauthorized data proliferation is to avoid putting your personal or professional information on a social media site. However, the social media companies want you to continue to "share" so they can monetize your data and users want to continue to "share" so they showcase themselves to others. There is no easy answer here but since the industry continues to fail miserably to enforce its own internal policies and does not have any real incentive to protect its users' data it may be time for Congress to act. Therefore, until the major social media companies demonstrate a real initiative to protect its users' personal data I strongly advocate for the passage of the Social Media Privacy Protection Act.
To learn how to protect and monetize your social media profile you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Facebook's New Group Tools Should Be Opt-In
Facebook recently launced a new tool called Groups that enables users to create mini social networks within a Facebook user's list of friends. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the impetus for groups was to make communicating with your friends on Facebook more like talking with them in the real world."
Facebook Groups was created not to mimic real world communication but to better enable Facebook to monetize your personal data. Many Facebook users have hundreds of Facebook Friends. However, Facebook does not know what a user's true relationship is with each of its Facebook friends. A user's Facebook Friends may include: high school friends, college friends, graduate school friends, co-workers, family members, strangers, associates, significant others, ex-friends, ex-significant others, etc...
According to a recent PC Magazine article, a Facebook spokesperson stated "[w]e made the decision to allow Group members to add others to the Group in order to make the product simple, and because it resembles something we all understand: adding one of your contacts to an e-mail thread." An e-mail thread may be more analagous to unsolicited junk mail (snail or email) than a real group. In addition, opting-in instead of opting out would have made the product simple for users because opting out forces users to take steps that are not user friendly.
If Facebook wanted to make its new Groups feature mimic real world communication it would have enabled users to individually opt-into Groups instead of making users opt-out. Making users opt-out instead of opt-in has the potential to create some unintended legal issues for some of its users. For example, what if a boss or family member or friend reviews a Group page and found out you were a member of a Group that had some sort of stigma?
In my opinion, Facebook made groups opt-out instead of opt-in to better collect and then sell your personal data to marketers. Facebook is on a furious pace to monetize its users' data to demonstrate to prospective bidders for its future IPO Facebook's monetary potential. If Facebook cares about its users' privacy it will change its Group's feature to be opt-in instead of opt-out. When was the last time you had to opt-out of going to dinner with a real group of friends? To go out with a real group of friends you must opt-in. Therefore, I challenge Facebook to correct this major oversight to its new Group tool.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Facebook Groups was created not to mimic real world communication but to better enable Facebook to monetize your personal data. Many Facebook users have hundreds of Facebook Friends. However, Facebook does not know what a user's true relationship is with each of its Facebook friends. A user's Facebook Friends may include: high school friends, college friends, graduate school friends, co-workers, family members, strangers, associates, significant others, ex-friends, ex-significant others, etc...
According to a recent PC Magazine article, a Facebook spokesperson stated "[w]e made the decision to allow Group members to add others to the Group in order to make the product simple, and because it resembles something we all understand: adding one of your contacts to an e-mail thread." An e-mail thread may be more analagous to unsolicited junk mail (snail or email) than a real group. In addition, opting-in instead of opting out would have made the product simple for users because opting out forces users to take steps that are not user friendly.
If Facebook wanted to make its new Groups feature mimic real world communication it would have enabled users to individually opt-into Groups instead of making users opt-out. Making users opt-out instead of opt-in has the potential to create some unintended legal issues for some of its users. For example, what if a boss or family member or friend reviews a Group page and found out you were a member of a Group that had some sort of stigma?
In my opinion, Facebook made groups opt-out instead of opt-in to better collect and then sell your personal data to marketers. Facebook is on a furious pace to monetize its users' data to demonstrate to prospective bidders for its future IPO Facebook's monetary potential. If Facebook cares about its users' privacy it will change its Group's feature to be opt-in instead of opt-out. When was the last time you had to opt-out of going to dinner with a real group of friends? To go out with a real group of friends you must opt-in. Therefore, I challenge Facebook to correct this major oversight to its new Group tool.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Latest Cyberbullying Tragedy May Trigger Congressional Action To Address Social Media Law Issues
Cyberbullying has once again gained national headlines due to the recent tragic case of Tyler Clementi. To summarize this case, Clementi was a freshman at Rutgers University who committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. Clementi was apparently extremely distraught because allegedly his roommate and another student utilized a webcam to stream onto the Internet Clementi being intimate with another person.
The students who allegedly set up the webcam that captured Clementi without his conset have been charged with Invasion of Privacy. Unfortunately, there is usually a lag between the rapid pace of new technology and the law that governs the use of new technology. In the case of civil and criminal digital crimes this lag is substantial.
This past July, I wrote about cyberbullying because a new Georgia law aimed at curtailing cyberbullying may have some unintended 1st Amendment related consequences. While I believe that Georgia's cyberbullying law has the right intent I do not believe it will withstand constitutional scrutiny for the reasons I stated in that post.
Unfortunately, it has taken another cyberbullying victim to get the attention of Congress. Over the past several years, there have been several high profile cases of cyberbullying. Earlier this year, Phoebe Prince was the poster child for cyberbullying. Now Tyler Clementi. I would hate to see another person's life cut short because they felt their life was over because of content that was uploaded about them online.
Currently, 45 states have some type of anti-bullying law. Even with all of these laws on the books this problem still persists. I believe education at home and in the schools is the best first line of defense in combatting cyberbullying. However, it appears that this may not be enough to deter this destructive activity.
Therefore, I would be happy to assist Congress in drafting a national anti-cyberbullying statute that would balance the need for 1st Amendment protection along with the way information is spread in the Social Media Age along with the need to protect cyberbullying victims. If Senator Lautenberg's office is interested in my assistance his office may contact me directly at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
The students who allegedly set up the webcam that captured Clementi without his conset have been charged with Invasion of Privacy. Unfortunately, there is usually a lag between the rapid pace of new technology and the law that governs the use of new technology. In the case of civil and criminal digital crimes this lag is substantial.
This past July, I wrote about cyberbullying because a new Georgia law aimed at curtailing cyberbullying may have some unintended 1st Amendment related consequences. While I believe that Georgia's cyberbullying law has the right intent I do not believe it will withstand constitutional scrutiny for the reasons I stated in that post.
Unfortunately, it has taken another cyberbullying victim to get the attention of Congress. Over the past several years, there have been several high profile cases of cyberbullying. Earlier this year, Phoebe Prince was the poster child for cyberbullying. Now Tyler Clementi. I would hate to see another person's life cut short because they felt their life was over because of content that was uploaded about them online.
Currently, 45 states have some type of anti-bullying law. Even with all of these laws on the books this problem still persists. I believe education at home and in the schools is the best first line of defense in combatting cyberbullying. However, it appears that this may not be enough to deter this destructive activity.
Therefore, I would be happy to assist Congress in drafting a national anti-cyberbullying statute that would balance the need for 1st Amendment protection along with the way information is spread in the Social Media Age along with the need to protect cyberbullying victims. If Senator Lautenberg's office is interested in my assistance his office may contact me directly at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Social Network, Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Social Media Public Relations
The movie "The Social Network" premiered in New York City this past Friday and will be widely distributed on October 1st. The screenplay was written by Aaron Sorkin and is based on Ben Mezrich's book, "The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal."
According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook tried to influence the narrative in "The Social Network." Last month, the New York Times stated that, "[b]ehind the scenes, however, Mr. Zuckerberg and his colleagues have been locked in a tense standoff with the filmmakers" regarding the content of the film." I don't blame Facebook for trying to persuade the filmmakers to create a film that puts its founder in the best possible light; however, Facebook needs to realize that trying to massage a message in the Social Media Age is very difficult. Instead of trying to ignore "The Social Network," Facebook should embrace and own the story of its founding with its warts, real and imagined.
In the movie, "Clear and Present Danger," the fictional president has a public relations problem on his hand because a close friend of his may have been involved in drug trafficking. Harrison Ford's character (Jack Ryan) advises the president something along the lines that he should tell the media that the friend in question was not just a friend but a close friend. This advice killed the story because the fictional president embraced and owned up to the relationship.
On December 2, 2009, and then again on December 10, 2009, I blogged how Tiger Woods should handle his public relations situation and provided David Letterman and Meredith Baxter as examples of great Social Media public relations. As the world knows, Woods did not listen to my advice. Woods allowed the situation to spiral out of control and he lost his family, hundreds of millions of dollars, and his ability to focus on his profession.
Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg should openly embrace and promote the movie, "The Social Network" because downplaying the movie and/or ignoring it enables others to own the narrative. Zuckerberg is extremely hypocritical because he wants everyone to share their private information but he refuses to reciprocate. If Zuckerberg held a press conference and publicly explained the entire situation regarding the founding of Facebook and was open and honest about all the lawsuits he has had to settle surrounding Facebook's founding the story would die a natural death because he would own the narrative.
I have read Ben Mezrich's book, "The Accidental Billionaries" and David Kilpratrick's "The Facebook Effect". Mezrich's book is a much more interesting account than Kilpatrick's. In addition, I watched Zuckerberg's recent Oprah appearance and Zuckerberg seemed uncomfortable when "The Social Network" was brought up.
The truth in how Facebook was started is most likely somewhere in between Mezrich's account and Kilpatrick's Facebook endorsed version. "The Social Network" has been made and Facebook and Zuckerberg's public relations team should embrace movie. Facebook's stance towards the movie is only going to encourage more people to want to see it.
The bottom line is that Facebook and Zuckerberg need to reevaluate their Social Media Public Relations strategy.
To learn how to create and execute a Social Media Public Relations and Crisis Management Plan and to understand the legal issues that may affect your plans you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook tried to influence the narrative in "The Social Network." Last month, the New York Times stated that, "[b]ehind the scenes, however, Mr. Zuckerberg and his colleagues have been locked in a tense standoff with the filmmakers" regarding the content of the film." I don't blame Facebook for trying to persuade the filmmakers to create a film that puts its founder in the best possible light; however, Facebook needs to realize that trying to massage a message in the Social Media Age is very difficult. Instead of trying to ignore "The Social Network," Facebook should embrace and own the story of its founding with its warts, real and imagined.
In the movie, "Clear and Present Danger," the fictional president has a public relations problem on his hand because a close friend of his may have been involved in drug trafficking. Harrison Ford's character (Jack Ryan) advises the president something along the lines that he should tell the media that the friend in question was not just a friend but a close friend. This advice killed the story because the fictional president embraced and owned up to the relationship.
On December 2, 2009, and then again on December 10, 2009, I blogged how Tiger Woods should handle his public relations situation and provided David Letterman and Meredith Baxter as examples of great Social Media public relations. As the world knows, Woods did not listen to my advice. Woods allowed the situation to spiral out of control and he lost his family, hundreds of millions of dollars, and his ability to focus on his profession.
Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg should openly embrace and promote the movie, "The Social Network" because downplaying the movie and/or ignoring it enables others to own the narrative. Zuckerberg is extremely hypocritical because he wants everyone to share their private information but he refuses to reciprocate. If Zuckerberg held a press conference and publicly explained the entire situation regarding the founding of Facebook and was open and honest about all the lawsuits he has had to settle surrounding Facebook's founding the story would die a natural death because he would own the narrative.
I have read Ben Mezrich's book, "The Accidental Billionaries" and David Kilpratrick's "The Facebook Effect". Mezrich's book is a much more interesting account than Kilpatrick's. In addition, I watched Zuckerberg's recent Oprah appearance and Zuckerberg seemed uncomfortable when "The Social Network" was brought up.
The truth in how Facebook was started is most likely somewhere in between Mezrich's account and Kilpatrick's Facebook endorsed version. "The Social Network" has been made and Facebook and Zuckerberg's public relations team should embrace movie. Facebook's stance towards the movie is only going to encourage more people to want to see it.
The bottom line is that Facebook and Zuckerberg need to reevaluate their Social Media Public Relations strategy.
To learn how to create and execute a Social Media Public Relations and Crisis Management Plan and to understand the legal issues that may affect your plans you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
9/11/2001, the 1st Amendment, and Social Media
Today marks the 9th anniversary of September 11, 2001. On September 11, 2001, at least 19 terrorists attacked the United States without any provocation. Nine years ago, I was living several blocks away from the World Trade Center and I witnessed first hand the tragedy and aftermath of this cowardly attack against our country. Due to the destruction that was caused, I became displaced from my home.
To my generation, Sept. 11th means what December 7th meant to my grandfather's generation. As President Roosevelt stated during a joint session of Congress on December 8, 1941, December 7, 1941 is a date that will live in infamy. President Bush's first official address post the September 11, 2001 attacks summed up our country's initial reaction to this act of cowardice.
In the United States, the 1st Amendment protects against most free speech. An open forum to discuss ideas is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Voltaire is credited by some with saying, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." This mentality was one of the inspirations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In the Social Media Age, people have to be very careful about what they say and do because every action or reaction has the potential to become a news story that may change international perception in a New York minute. For example, the controversy surrounding the proposal to build a mosque in the former Burlington Coat Factory building near the site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan has caused a firestorm not only in New York City but around the globe.
This story appeared to be only a local Lower Manhattan issue until President Obama commented on the subject. The President's comments were quickly carried via social media and traditional media around the globe and all of sudden it became an international issue where world leaders, political pundits, etc... offered their two cents. The on/off again plan to create a bonfire to burn hundreds of copies of Islam's holy book, the Koran by Florida preacher Terry Jones is another example of how the mainstream media and social media may shape international opinion.
The owners of the property in Lower Manhattan that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory have a legal right to build a mosque if they abide by all local zoning laws. In addition, Terry Jones has the legal right to burn the Koran assuming he does so in a manner that does not break any local Florida laws against creating bonfires. The First Amendment protects ideas and opinions, regardless of their popularity.
However, just because both of these parties have a legal right to do these things that does not mean they should do it. Legal rights and moral rights are two different things and unfortunately the media generally distorts these issues to create stories that will generate more eyeballs for their coverage and in turn more advertising dollars that strengthen their bottom line.
The media, politicians, military personnel, and businesses need to rethink their public relations strategy in the Social Media Age because in many instances social media fuels media coverage and this enables a story to become a much larger event than it ever should have become. I bet that Andy Warhol would love the Social Media Age because now everyone has the opportunity to get their "15 Minutes" of fame very easily. According to the Washington Post, Terry Jones' publicity plan started with a tweet. Now Terry Jones is a household name. This is another example of the power of social media.
As of this writing, Terry Jones has stated he will not hold a bonfire to burn hundreds of copies of the Koran. In turn, the owners of the building that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory in Lower Manhattan should rethink their position and look to build their mosque several blocks further away from the World Trade Center site. Even though both of these parties have a legal right to do what they have publicly stated they want to do, following through with their plans will only increase tensions on each side that may lead to unanticipated consequences that may have a domino affect. It is now time to allow each party to save face so each may proclaim they have made their point.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
To my generation, Sept. 11th means what December 7th meant to my grandfather's generation. As President Roosevelt stated during a joint session of Congress on December 8, 1941, December 7, 1941 is a date that will live in infamy. President Bush's first official address post the September 11, 2001 attacks summed up our country's initial reaction to this act of cowardice.
In the United States, the 1st Amendment protects against most free speech. An open forum to discuss ideas is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Voltaire is credited by some with saying, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." This mentality was one of the inspirations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In the Social Media Age, people have to be very careful about what they say and do because every action or reaction has the potential to become a news story that may change international perception in a New York minute. For example, the controversy surrounding the proposal to build a mosque in the former Burlington Coat Factory building near the site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan has caused a firestorm not only in New York City but around the globe.
This story appeared to be only a local Lower Manhattan issue until President Obama commented on the subject. The President's comments were quickly carried via social media and traditional media around the globe and all of sudden it became an international issue where world leaders, political pundits, etc... offered their two cents. The on/off again plan to create a bonfire to burn hundreds of copies of Islam's holy book, the Koran by Florida preacher Terry Jones is another example of how the mainstream media and social media may shape international opinion.
The owners of the property in Lower Manhattan that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory have a legal right to build a mosque if they abide by all local zoning laws. In addition, Terry Jones has the legal right to burn the Koran assuming he does so in a manner that does not break any local Florida laws against creating bonfires. The First Amendment protects ideas and opinions, regardless of their popularity.
However, just because both of these parties have a legal right to do these things that does not mean they should do it. Legal rights and moral rights are two different things and unfortunately the media generally distorts these issues to create stories that will generate more eyeballs for their coverage and in turn more advertising dollars that strengthen their bottom line.
The media, politicians, military personnel, and businesses need to rethink their public relations strategy in the Social Media Age because in many instances social media fuels media coverage and this enables a story to become a much larger event than it ever should have become. I bet that Andy Warhol would love the Social Media Age because now everyone has the opportunity to get their "15 Minutes" of fame very easily. According to the Washington Post, Terry Jones' publicity plan started with a tweet. Now Terry Jones is a household name. This is another example of the power of social media.
As of this writing, Terry Jones has stated he will not hold a bonfire to burn hundreds of copies of the Koran. In turn, the owners of the building that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory in Lower Manhattan should rethink their position and look to build their mosque several blocks further away from the World Trade Center site. Even though both of these parties have a legal right to do what they have publicly stated they want to do, following through with their plans will only increase tensions on each side that may lead to unanticipated consequences that may have a domino affect. It is now time to allow each party to save face so each may proclaim they have made their point.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, August 2, 2010
The DMCA's Safe Harbor May Only Provide Commercial Entities a One Business Day Grace Period to Remove Infringing Content
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not state how long an Internet Service Provider (ISP)/Online Service Provider (OSP) has to respond to a claim of copyright infringement. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, "[u]pon receipt of a compliant notification of claimed infringement, a service provider must respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of the infringing activity, if the service provider seeks to receive the benefits of the limitations of liability contained in § 512(c)".
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, defines expeditiously to mean "marked by or acting with prompt efficiency." According to Wikipedia's entry for the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, "[f]or a commercially run on-line provider taking action within the hour to tell a customer that a takedown notice has been received and informing them that they must immediately remove the content and confirm removal, giving them six to twelve hours to comply; and otherwise informing them that the content will be taken down or their Internet connection terminated, may be considered reasonable."
There is no controlling case law that provides black letter law regarding the DMCA's definition of expeditiously. However, it was noted in Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 07 Civ. 2103 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010) that when YouTube received from Viacom one mass take-down notice for 100,000 videos within one business day almost all of the infringing content was removed. Viacom's take-down notice was sent on February 2, 2007, which is more than three and half years ago. Since this mass take-down, advances in technology have made it easier to detect and remove infringing content.
Since YouTube, a commercial entity, had the resources to remove allegedly infringing content within one business day more than three and a half years ago, it is not onerous for commercial entities to abide by a one business day rule today. At first glance, it may sound onerous for a web site to be forced to remove allegedly infringing content within one business day. However, in a matter of hours a popular movie, book, or other original work may be downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. These downloads may cause serious irreparable financial harm to copyright holders.
According to the Senate Report about the DMCA (S. Rep. 105-190 at 44), "[b]ecause the factual circumstances and technical parameters may vary from case to case, it is not possible to identify a uniform time limit for expeditious action." In my opinion, this indicates that a non-profit may be held to a different less onerous standard than a commercial entity. Since S. Rep 105-190 was created, technology has drastically changed and I do not believe it was the intent of the Senate to provide ISPs/OSPs wide latitude to remove infringing content at their leisure when even a minor delay in removal may cause serious financial repercussions to rights holders.
The DMCA's safe harbor provision is already tilted heavily in favor of ISPs/OSPs. Therefore, to level the playing field it is time for either Congress or the courts to declare that under the DMCA commercial entities have one business day to remove infringing content.
To learn more about protecting and monetizing your online content you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, defines expeditiously to mean "marked by or acting with prompt efficiency." According to Wikipedia's entry for the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, "[f]or a commercially run on-line provider taking action within the hour to tell a customer that a takedown notice has been received and informing them that they must immediately remove the content and confirm removal, giving them six to twelve hours to comply; and otherwise informing them that the content will be taken down or their Internet connection terminated, may be considered reasonable."
There is no controlling case law that provides black letter law regarding the DMCA's definition of expeditiously. However, it was noted in Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 07 Civ. 2103 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010) that when YouTube received from Viacom one mass take-down notice for 100,000 videos within one business day almost all of the infringing content was removed. Viacom's take-down notice was sent on February 2, 2007, which is more than three and half years ago. Since this mass take-down, advances in technology have made it easier to detect and remove infringing content.
Since YouTube, a commercial entity, had the resources to remove allegedly infringing content within one business day more than three and a half years ago, it is not onerous for commercial entities to abide by a one business day rule today. At first glance, it may sound onerous for a web site to be forced to remove allegedly infringing content within one business day. However, in a matter of hours a popular movie, book, or other original work may be downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. These downloads may cause serious irreparable financial harm to copyright holders.
According to the Senate Report about the DMCA (S. Rep. 105-190 at 44), "[b]ecause the factual circumstances and technical parameters may vary from case to case, it is not possible to identify a uniform time limit for expeditious action." In my opinion, this indicates that a non-profit may be held to a different less onerous standard than a commercial entity. Since S. Rep 105-190 was created, technology has drastically changed and I do not believe it was the intent of the Senate to provide ISPs/OSPs wide latitude to remove infringing content at their leisure when even a minor delay in removal may cause serious financial repercussions to rights holders.
The DMCA's safe harbor provision is already tilted heavily in favor of ISPs/OSPs. Therefore, to level the playing field it is time for either Congress or the courts to declare that under the DMCA commercial entities have one business day to remove infringing content.
To learn more about protecting and monetizing your online content you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Maryland's Social Media Election Regulations Are a Model For the Rest of the U.S.
This past week, the state of Maryland passed social media election regulations that require candidates for state political office to include an authority line on all of their campaign social media accounts. Maryland is technically the second state in the country, behind Florida, to officially address social media usage in state political campaigns. However, Maryland is the first state to proactively create social media regulations before its election board was forced to do so because of litigation.
Social media election regulations are needed so that voters are able to determine whether a social media account they are viewing is part of a candidate's official campaign. Of the most widely utilized social media platforms, only Twitter has a process that officially verifies accounts. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the page you are viewing is created by or on behalf of a person, an entity, or an activity.
Under Maryland's new regulations, social media is to be treated in the same manner as other campaign material and communication. From a conceptual standpoint, social media is an online extension of a candidate's television, radio, or print advertisements. Due to the drastic increase of social media usage since the last election cycle, it was time for political social media campaign utilization to be regulated. It is only a matter of time before the Federal Election Commission decides to regulate social media for federal campaigns.
I worked with Maryland's State Board of Elections ("Board") to draft Maryland's new social media election regulations. In June, the Board voted 4-0 to pass the regulations and earlier this week a committee of state lawmakers voted 11-1 to implement the new regulations for this upcoming election cycle. The regulations received bipartisan political support and they were also supported by the social media business community. The almost unanimous support from all of these stakeholders apparently means that I was successful at working with the Board to draft fair and balanced rules.
The regulations are not onerous on candidates and are inexpensive to follow. Also, they do not have any additional requirements that go beyond what is required for other forms of campaign media. The only drawback with the new regulations is that they do not teach candidates how to utilize social media. From my review of some of Maryland's major political candidates' social media accounts, it is apparent that politicians in Maryland need the assistance of a social media lawyer to teach them how to better deploy their social media assets.
To learn how to abide by Maryland's social media election regulations and to successfully deploy social media in your campaign you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Social media election regulations are needed so that voters are able to determine whether a social media account they are viewing is part of a candidate's official campaign. Of the most widely utilized social media platforms, only Twitter has a process that officially verifies accounts. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the page you are viewing is created by or on behalf of a person, an entity, or an activity.
Under Maryland's new regulations, social media is to be treated in the same manner as other campaign material and communication. From a conceptual standpoint, social media is an online extension of a candidate's television, radio, or print advertisements. Due to the drastic increase of social media usage since the last election cycle, it was time for political social media campaign utilization to be regulated. It is only a matter of time before the Federal Election Commission decides to regulate social media for federal campaigns.
I worked with Maryland's State Board of Elections ("Board") to draft Maryland's new social media election regulations. In June, the Board voted 4-0 to pass the regulations and earlier this week a committee of state lawmakers voted 11-1 to implement the new regulations for this upcoming election cycle. The regulations received bipartisan political support and they were also supported by the social media business community. The almost unanimous support from all of these stakeholders apparently means that I was successful at working with the Board to draft fair and balanced rules.
The regulations are not onerous on candidates and are inexpensive to follow. Also, they do not have any additional requirements that go beyond what is required for other forms of campaign media. The only drawback with the new regulations is that they do not teach candidates how to utilize social media. From my review of some of Maryland's major political candidates' social media accounts, it is apparent that politicians in Maryland need the assistance of a social media lawyer to teach them how to better deploy their social media assets.
To learn how to abide by Maryland's social media election regulations and to successfully deploy social media in your campaign you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)