Utah recently became the latest state to enact legislation that bans schools from deploying social media monitoring firms that require students verify their social media user names and/or passwords. Utah joins Delaware, California, Michigan, and New Jersey in protecting their schools, students, and taxpayers from social media snake oil salesmen who are selling legal liability time bombs.
The Utah legislation appears to have been prompted because of a Time Magazine article that discussed the student-athlete social media policy of one Utah school. This academic institution appeared to require student-athletes sign a social media policy that stated, "To the extent that any
federal, state, or local law prohibits the Athletic Department from
accessing my social networking accounts, I hereby waive any and all such
rights and protections." According to constitutional law expert Professor Phil Closius, this student-athlete social media policy was "clearly suspect". Under Utah's new law (H.B. 100), this policy is not just clearly suspect but against the law.
What does Utah's new law along with similar laws across the country mean for schools? In short, academic institutions need to re-examine their student-athlete social media policies and education programs to ensure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. Athletic departments need to understand that social media is not just a public relations issue but a serious legal matter that requires the counsel of social media law experts who understand college athletics and NCAA compliance. Drafting and implementing improper student-athlete social media policies may create millions of dollars in legal liability.
Consultants who sell "student-athlete social media monitoring services" to athletic departments are selling legal liability time bombs. Deadspin has already exposed several companies as having no connection to college athletics before starting their "social media monitoring firms". Some companies that are approaching colleges appear to be making material misrepresentations to market their services. For example, how does someone transition from being a health care recruiter to a social media student-athlete compliance and education consultant overnight?
The bottom line is that states across the country are banning schools from being able to deploy firms to monitor and archive their students' personal digital content. These laws may cumulatively save schools around the United States hundreds of millions of dollars in monitoring, legal, compliance, and insurance costs.
In order for social media monitoring services to properly function students must at least verify their social media user names. Absent student verification these services are unable properly work. Furthermore, athletic departments should not be fooled into believing these services are compliant with all state and/or federal laws. In general, these companies also claim their services are educational tools while others claim they want to protect the online reputation of schools and/or students. Has anyone asked those who are approaching schools for their teaching credentials?
It appears that the founders of these companies have no verifiable experience that would lend any credibility to their claims. Consultants who are marketing student-athlete social media monitoring services to athletic departments do not understand social media, NCAA compliance, public policy, or the law; and they apparently care more about making a sale than protecting schools and student-athletes.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label NCAA Social Media Compliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NCAA Social Media Compliance. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
Arkansas Bans NCAA Student-Athlete Social Media Monitoring Companies
Arkansas has became the latest state to enact legislation that bans
schools from deploying social media monitoring firms to track their students' personal digital accounts. Arkansas joins Delaware, California, Michigan, New Jersey and Utah in protecting their
schools, students, and taxpayers from fear and misinformation.
Consultants who sell student-athlete social media monitoring services to athletic departments are selling legal liability time bombs. Deadspin has already exposed several companies as having no connection to college athletics before starting their "social media monitoring firms". Some companies that are approaching colleges appear to be making material misrepresentations to market their services.
One consultant quoted me (who appears to have no verifiable experience in college athletics, social media, law, or compliance before he started selling his services to NCAA schools) in a press release touting his social media monitoring service last year. Quoting me to market a service that may create tremendous legal liability for NCAA schools is very troubling. Lawyers and risk professionals who understand this issue would never endorse a service that may increase a school's legal liability and/or may advise an academic institution to violate state and/or federal law.
The bottom line is that states across the country are banning schools from being able to deploy firms to monitor and archive their students' personal digital content. These laws may cumulatively save schools around the United States hundreds of millions of dollars in monitoring, legal, compliance, and insurance costs.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Consultants who sell student-athlete social media monitoring services to athletic departments are selling legal liability time bombs. Deadspin has already exposed several companies as having no connection to college athletics before starting their "social media monitoring firms". Some companies that are approaching colleges appear to be making material misrepresentations to market their services.
One consultant quoted me (who appears to have no verifiable experience in college athletics, social media, law, or compliance before he started selling his services to NCAA schools) in a press release touting his social media monitoring service last year. Quoting me to market a service that may create tremendous legal liability for NCAA schools is very troubling. Lawyers and risk professionals who understand this issue would never endorse a service that may increase a school's legal liability and/or may advise an academic institution to violate state and/or federal law.
The bottom line is that states across the country are banning schools from being able to deploy firms to monitor and archive their students' personal digital content. These laws may cumulatively save schools around the United States hundreds of millions of dollars in monitoring, legal, compliance, and insurance costs.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Michigan Bans NCAA Schools From Cyberstalking Student-Athletes
Michigan has joined the growing list of states that have banned schools from requiring their student-athletes to register and/or provide access to their personal email/social media credentials and content. Michigan joins Delaware, California, and New Jersey in banning NCAA schools from requiring their students to verify their personal digital accounts in order to apply or attend school, keep their scholarships, or participate in intercollegiate athletics.
Michigan's legislation is the most comprehensive in the country because it also bans elementary, middle, and high schools from also requiring their students to turn over their personal digital account information. In a nutshell, the new law generally bans all schools from requesting their students provide them access to their personal social media/digital media usernames, passwords and/or content. This policy affirms that the state of Michigan will not allow its schools to act like China who is requiring its citizens to register their personal digital accounts so the government may "monitor" everything their citizens do online.
Michigan's legislation may save Michigan schools tens of millions of dollars per year that may have been utilized to contract with companies that offer cyberstalking services to track the digital activities of students, their families, and friends. The companies that sell cyberstalking software to schools use terms like, "monitoring", "educating", and "leading" when describing their services, and/or companies. In addition, if you perform due diligence on the founders of the companies that offer these so called "monitoring" or "educating" services you may notice they have no verifiable professional credentials that demonstrate that any sports (college, amateur, or professional) organization should engage them for social media or education related services.
Some of these companies are also stating that they support social media privacy legislation which if true means they support a ban on their cyberstalking services. In order for any social media "monitoring" (cyberstalking) software to properly work it needs a student to verify his personal digital credentials. Absent student verification these services will not work.
Any public school that engages a firm to "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may in the near future receive a letter from their state's attorney general, the U.S. Department Education, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, or a law firm regarding their practices. Schools that "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may soon encounter steep fines, lawsuits, or a loss of education funding that may amount to tens of millions of dollars.
The bottom line is that public schools that engage self-described "social media experts"/"social media education & monitoring services"/"social media protectors of reputation" may create tremendous personal safety and privacy problems for their student-athletes, and massive legal liability issues for their institutions and taxpayers.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
(Full Disclosure: I advised Michigan Rep. Arc Nesbitt's office on HB 5523)
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Michigan's legislation is the most comprehensive in the country because it also bans elementary, middle, and high schools from also requiring their students to turn over their personal digital account information. In a nutshell, the new law generally bans all schools from requesting their students provide them access to their personal social media/digital media usernames, passwords and/or content. This policy affirms that the state of Michigan will not allow its schools to act like China who is requiring its citizens to register their personal digital accounts so the government may "monitor" everything their citizens do online.
Michigan's legislation may save Michigan schools tens of millions of dollars per year that may have been utilized to contract with companies that offer cyberstalking services to track the digital activities of students, their families, and friends. The companies that sell cyberstalking software to schools use terms like, "monitoring", "educating", and "leading" when describing their services, and/or companies. In addition, if you perform due diligence on the founders of the companies that offer these so called "monitoring" or "educating" services you may notice they have no verifiable professional credentials that demonstrate that any sports (college, amateur, or professional) organization should engage them for social media or education related services.
Some of these companies are also stating that they support social media privacy legislation which if true means they support a ban on their cyberstalking services. In order for any social media "monitoring" (cyberstalking) software to properly work it needs a student to verify his personal digital credentials. Absent student verification these services will not work.
Any public school that engages a firm to "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may in the near future receive a letter from their state's attorney general, the U.S. Department Education, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, or a law firm regarding their practices. Schools that "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may soon encounter steep fines, lawsuits, or a loss of education funding that may amount to tens of millions of dollars.
The bottom line is that public schools that engage self-described "social media experts"/"social media education & monitoring services"/"social media protectors of reputation" may create tremendous personal safety and privacy problems for their student-athletes, and massive legal liability issues for their institutions and taxpayers.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
(Full Disclosure: I advised Michigan Rep. Arc Nesbitt's office on HB 5523)
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
China's Internet Policy Should Not Be Followed By NCAA Athletic Departments
China is a communist country and enacts laws that are designed to keep its political system intact. Many countries enact legislation that is designed to keep the power status quo.
The United States' First Amendment provides its citizens the strongest freedom of speech protections available in the world. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Even though our First Amendment rights have some limitations, our ability to be able to be anonymous when speaking is well grounded in our history. China recently enacted legislation that strips its citizens of these rights online. While this law may be acceptable in China it has no place in the United States.
Unfortunately, some NCAA schools are following China's lead and believe it is legal to require its student-athletes to register their digital usernames and/or passwords and/or download cyberstalking software onto their personal accounts and electronic devices to keep their scholarships and/or participate in intercollegiate activities.
There is no valid reason for any public academic institution to require their students to provide their social media credentials to play intercollegiate sports. These types of policies have no place in the United States. At least 4 states have recently enacted legislation to ban this activity and Congress has introduced a ban on this practice.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
The United States' First Amendment provides its citizens the strongest freedom of speech protections available in the world. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Even though our First Amendment rights have some limitations, our ability to be able to be anonymous when speaking is well grounded in our history. China recently enacted legislation that strips its citizens of these rights online. While this law may be acceptable in China it has no place in the United States.
Unfortunately, some NCAA schools are following China's lead and believe it is legal to require its student-athletes to register their digital usernames and/or passwords and/or download cyberstalking software onto their personal accounts and electronic devices to keep their scholarships and/or participate in intercollegiate activities.
There is no valid reason for any public academic institution to require their students to provide their social media credentials to play intercollegiate sports. These types of policies have no place in the United States. At least 4 states have recently enacted legislation to ban this activity and Congress has introduced a ban on this practice.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
California passes student social media privacy legislation
California has passed Senate Bill 1349. The bill is a win for California schools, taxpayers, students, and prospective students. If Governor Brown signs the bill it may help increase enrollment in California schools because it signals to the entire world that California is a leader in digital privacy and common sense technology law.
The legislation does not appear to have any implementation costs for California and may save California schools and taxpayers millions of dollars per year. According to the New York Times, it may cost approximately $10,000 per year to social media monitor a small segment of a school's student population. There appears to be more than 150 4-year post secondary academic institutions based in California. Therefore, if you multiply 150 x $10,000 this may save California 4-year post secondary schools at least $1.5 million dollars per year. This does not factor in some of the potential savings from not needing increased cyber liability insurance policies, legal fees to review the social media monitoring contracts between the schools and monitoring companies, and the cost to defend against negligent social media monitoring lawsuits or the failure to social media monitor lawsuits. Overall, the cost savings to California post secondary schools and taxpayers may exceed $5 million per year.
Any company that approaches NCAA sanctioned schools to sell social media monitoring services is selling a legal liability time bomb. Yesterday, there was a very troubling Louisville Courier-Journal report that stated that the University of Kentucky via a company called Centrix Social was social media monitoring some of its students and flagging them for using the term "Arab" or "Muslim" online. Centrix Social was recently acquired by Varsity Monitor who according to Deadspin.com appears to have some ethical challenges.
If SB 1349 is enacted, it may protect California schools from millions of dollars in additional compliance and regulatory costs, and millions of dollars in potential legal liability costs associated with social media related lawsuits.
(Full Disclosure: I advised California Sen. Yee's office on this legislation.)
The legislation does not appear to have any implementation costs for California and may save California schools and taxpayers millions of dollars per year. According to the New York Times, it may cost approximately $10,000 per year to social media monitor a small segment of a school's student population. There appears to be more than 150 4-year post secondary academic institutions based in California. Therefore, if you multiply 150 x $10,000 this may save California 4-year post secondary schools at least $1.5 million dollars per year. This does not factor in some of the potential savings from not needing increased cyber liability insurance policies, legal fees to review the social media monitoring contracts between the schools and monitoring companies, and the cost to defend against negligent social media monitoring lawsuits or the failure to social media monitor lawsuits. Overall, the cost savings to California post secondary schools and taxpayers may exceed $5 million per year.
Any company that approaches NCAA sanctioned schools to sell social media monitoring services is selling a legal liability time bomb. Yesterday, there was a very troubling Louisville Courier-Journal report that stated that the University of Kentucky via a company called Centrix Social was social media monitoring some of its students and flagging them for using the term "Arab" or "Muslim" online. Centrix Social was recently acquired by Varsity Monitor who according to Deadspin.com appears to have some ethical challenges.
If SB 1349 is enacted, it may protect California schools from millions of dollars in additional compliance and regulatory costs, and millions of dollars in potential legal liability costs associated with social media related lawsuits.
(Full Disclosure: I advised California Sen. Yee's office on this legislation.)
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Delaware passes student-athlete social media privacy legislation
Delaware is the first state to pass student social media privacy legislation. While HB 309: An Act to Amend Title 14 of the Delaware Code Relating to Education was passed by both the Delaware General Assembly and Senate over the weekend, it still needs to be signed by Delaware's governor to become law.
Delaware's HB 309 utilized Maryland's SB 434 as a template. Maryland's SB 434 passed the Maryland Senate 46-0 but died at the end of the legislative session due to the logjam created when the legislature was unable to pass a budget. Despite the setback in Maryland, multiple other states and Congress have introduced legislation that may protect schools from social media related lawsuits while also protecting the personal digital privacy rights of students.
HB 309 is needed because colleges and universities across the country are requiring some of their students to download social media monitoring software onto their personal electronic devices or accounts in order to keep their scholarships. This practice has become an epidemic. The CEO of one social media monitoring company has boasted that requiring students to provide access to password protected digital content “is the new drug testing — it will be as common as being asked to take a drug test in the next two years."
Under Delaware's HB 309, colleges and universities may not:
Require a student to provide his Facebook username and/or password to a school employee or agent of the school to obtain or keep a scholarship
Require a student to download social media monitoring software onto their personal iPhones, computers, accounts, etc...
Require a student to Facebook Friend a school employee or agent of the school
In return, Delaware colleges and universities may have a legal liability shield against claims that they have a legal duty to monitor their students' personal social media accounts. This legal liability shield may become extremely important in the near future in light of the recent lawsuit against the University of Virginia, its coaches, and athletic director for failing to properly monitor one of their star student-athletes.
Hiring social media consultants who advocate monitoring students' personal social media/digitial accounts may lead to lawsuits and judgements that may financially harm public schools and taxpayers. The bottom line is that colleges and universities in Delaware and across the country need to reexamine their general student and student-athlete social media policies to ensure that they do not violate state and/or federal law.
To learn more about legal student social media policies and how to properly educate your students and employees about social media you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
(Full Disclosure: I advised Rep. Brady and Sen. Bushweller's offices on HB 309 to ensure that it would mutually benefit colleges, universities, and students.)
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Delaware's HB 309 utilized Maryland's SB 434 as a template. Maryland's SB 434 passed the Maryland Senate 46-0 but died at the end of the legislative session due to the logjam created when the legislature was unable to pass a budget. Despite the setback in Maryland, multiple other states and Congress have introduced legislation that may protect schools from social media related lawsuits while also protecting the personal digital privacy rights of students.
HB 309 is needed because colleges and universities across the country are requiring some of their students to download social media monitoring software onto their personal electronic devices or accounts in order to keep their scholarships. This practice has become an epidemic. The CEO of one social media monitoring company has boasted that requiring students to provide access to password protected digital content “is the new drug testing — it will be as common as being asked to take a drug test in the next two years."
Under Delaware's HB 309, colleges and universities may not:
Require a student to provide his Facebook username and/or password to a school employee or agent of the school to obtain or keep a scholarship
Require a student to download social media monitoring software onto their personal iPhones, computers, accounts, etc...
Require a student to Facebook Friend a school employee or agent of the school
In return, Delaware colleges and universities may have a legal liability shield against claims that they have a legal duty to monitor their students' personal social media accounts. This legal liability shield may become extremely important in the near future in light of the recent lawsuit against the University of Virginia, its coaches, and athletic director for failing to properly monitor one of their star student-athletes.
Hiring social media consultants who advocate monitoring students' personal social media/digitial accounts may lead to lawsuits and judgements that may financially harm public schools and taxpayers. The bottom line is that colleges and universities in Delaware and across the country need to reexamine their general student and student-athlete social media policies to ensure that they do not violate state and/or federal law.
To learn more about legal student social media policies and how to properly educate your students and employees about social media you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
(Full Disclosure: I advised Rep. Brady and Sen. Bushweller's offices on HB 309 to ensure that it would mutually benefit colleges, universities, and students.)
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Penn State Sandusky guilty verdict proves NCAA schools should not hire social media monitoring companies to spy on their student-athletes or employees
The Penn State sex scandal is the worst scandal that any NCAA athletic department has ever encountered. Late last night, a jury found Jerry Sandusky, the former defensive coordinator of Penn State's football team guilty of 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse.
Jerry Sandusky is by far the worst monster to have ever coached at an NCAA school. My heart goes out to all of Sandusky's victims. According to published media reports, it appears that Penn State may have known that Sandusky was a sexual predator since at least 1998 when he was initially investigated by Penn State Police. Unfortunately, at that time nothing was done to stop this predator from having access to Penn State facilities with young boys.
Since at least 2002, the Penn State athletic department knew about allegations that Sandusky may have raped a young boy at its athletic facilities but did nothing to report him to law enforcement or to stop him from having access to its facilities. Since it appears that the athletic department knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual abuse crimes on its campus it may have significant civil legal liability. Administrators who lied about their knowledge of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities when questioned by police may also have criminal legal liability. In addition to potentially having criminal legal liability for lying about their knowledge of Sandusky's then alleged criminal activities, Penn State and its employees may also have significant civil liability for Sandusky's on and off-campus activities since it appears that Penn State knew that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual crimes and did nothing to stop him.
If Penn State wasn't informed about Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse of young boys it would be very difficult to prove that Penn State and/or any of its employees should be held liable for not stopping these terrible activities. However, since it appears that Penn State coaches, athletic department members, and members of the university administration knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing major crimes on and off campus Penn State and some current and/or former employees may have significant legal liability.
The Virgina Tech case should have been a wake up call that NCAA schools should not require their student-athletes or employees to provide access to their password protected digital content and/or to turn over their social media usernames. Next, the lawsuit by the family of a University of Virginia lacrosse player who was murdered by another student-athlete should have been another wake up call that athletic departments must stop these practices. Now, the Penn State guilty verdict appears to prove that if a university and/or its employees want to avoid legal liability for the digital content of their student-athletes or employees they must not require students or employees to provide access to their password protected personal digital content.
On November 15, 2011, I stated, if Penn State was aware of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities and failed to stop him the school may have major legal liability issues to defend against. Since it appears that Penn State knew about Sandusky's criminal behavior the economic cost of this matter to Penn State may be north of $100 million dollars due to court costs, litigation expenses, attorney fees, investigation costs, judgements, settlements, reputation costs, etc... It is premature to determine how much of these costs the school's insurance companies will pay but there is already litigation regarding the matter.
The Penn State sex scandal once again proves that NCAA schools need to ensure that their social media policies do not create unintended legal liability. Compliance personnel, coaches, or university employees who require their student-athletes or employees to turn over their social media usernames, passwords, or to download social media monitoring software, or to use any other unethical or illegal method to obtain access to their students' or employees' personal password protected digital content may create millions of dollars of legal liability for their schools and/or themselves.
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.
Jerry Sandusky is by far the worst monster to have ever coached at an NCAA school. My heart goes out to all of Sandusky's victims. According to published media reports, it appears that Penn State may have known that Sandusky was a sexual predator since at least 1998 when he was initially investigated by Penn State Police. Unfortunately, at that time nothing was done to stop this predator from having access to Penn State facilities with young boys.
Since at least 2002, the Penn State athletic department knew about allegations that Sandusky may have raped a young boy at its athletic facilities but did nothing to report him to law enforcement or to stop him from having access to its facilities. Since it appears that the athletic department knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual abuse crimes on its campus it may have significant civil legal liability. Administrators who lied about their knowledge of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities when questioned by police may also have criminal legal liability. In addition to potentially having criminal legal liability for lying about their knowledge of Sandusky's then alleged criminal activities, Penn State and its employees may also have significant civil liability for Sandusky's on and off-campus activities since it appears that Penn State knew that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual crimes and did nothing to stop him.
If Penn State wasn't informed about Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse of young boys it would be very difficult to prove that Penn State and/or any of its employees should be held liable for not stopping these terrible activities. However, since it appears that Penn State coaches, athletic department members, and members of the university administration knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing major crimes on and off campus Penn State and some current and/or former employees may have significant legal liability.
The Virgina Tech case should have been a wake up call that NCAA schools should not require their student-athletes or employees to provide access to their password protected digital content and/or to turn over their social media usernames. Next, the lawsuit by the family of a University of Virginia lacrosse player who was murdered by another student-athlete should have been another wake up call that athletic departments must stop these practices. Now, the Penn State guilty verdict appears to prove that if a university and/or its employees want to avoid legal liability for the digital content of their student-athletes or employees they must not require students or employees to provide access to their password protected personal digital content.
On November 15, 2011, I stated, if Penn State was aware of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities and failed to stop him the school may have major legal liability issues to defend against. Since it appears that Penn State knew about Sandusky's criminal behavior the economic cost of this matter to Penn State may be north of $100 million dollars due to court costs, litigation expenses, attorney fees, investigation costs, judgements, settlements, reputation costs, etc... It is premature to determine how much of these costs the school's insurance companies will pay but there is already litigation regarding the matter.
The Penn State sex scandal once again proves that NCAA schools need to ensure that their social media policies do not create unintended legal liability. Compliance personnel, coaches, or university employees who require their student-athletes or employees to turn over their social media usernames, passwords, or to download social media monitoring software, or to use any other unethical or illegal method to obtain access to their students' or employees' personal password protected digital content may create millions of dollars of legal liability for their schools and/or themselves.
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.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Are UDiligence and Varsity Monitor advising NCAA schools to violate the Stored Communications Act?
Over the past couple of years, companies with names like UDiligence and Varsity Monitor have been created to monitor the digital activity of student-athletes. At first glance it may seem like a good idea to require students to provide access to password protected social media content. However, once you understand what this means from a legal and financial perspective you may realize that this is a Pandora's Box that should not be opened.
UDiligence and Varsity Monitor appear to prey on the fears of college athletic departments even though the NCAA recently ruled that schools do not have a duty to monitor password protected social media content. Instead of helping NCAA athletic departments, these services may be exacerbating the situation because it appears they may be encouraging colleges to create new legal duties and violate the constitutional rights of their students along with multiple federal and state laws.
Within the past couple of weeks, both UDiligence and Varsity Monitor have taken down their client lists from their websites. Have the schools pressured them to do so? Or, did both of these companies take down their client lists because the media has started to ask in-depth questions about their services?
Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, 2009 WL 3128420 (D.N.J. 2009), is a case that appears analogous to the situation where schools are "requesting" that their student-athletes provide access to their password protected digital/social media accounts. In Pietrylo, an employee "did not feel free" to deny her boss access to a password protected MySpace account. The jury found that the employer violated the Stored Communications Act and the case was upheld on appeal. Therefore, since students "may not feel free" to deny their athletic departments and/or third parties access to their password protected social media accounts these services may be advising schools to violate the Stored Communications Act.
Since requesting employees to provide access to their password protected social media accounts has been found to violate the Stored Communications Act, it may also violate the Stored Communications Act for NCAA schools to "request" access to their students' password protected social media accounts. Requiring public school students to download applications and/or Facebook Friend university employees or agents may also violate the 1st and 4th Amendments along with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and multiple other federal and state laws.
The bottom line is that schools that engage UDiligence or Varsity Monitor may be paying $10,000 plus dollars per year for a service that may be creating more problems than it solves.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
UDiligence and Varsity Monitor appear to prey on the fears of college athletic departments even though the NCAA recently ruled that schools do not have a duty to monitor password protected social media content. Instead of helping NCAA athletic departments, these services may be exacerbating the situation because it appears they may be encouraging colleges to create new legal duties and violate the constitutional rights of their students along with multiple federal and state laws.
Within the past couple of weeks, both UDiligence and Varsity Monitor have taken down their client lists from their websites. Have the schools pressured them to do so? Or, did both of these companies take down their client lists because the media has started to ask in-depth questions about their services?
Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, 2009 WL 3128420 (D.N.J. 2009), is a case that appears analogous to the situation where schools are "requesting" that their student-athletes provide access to their password protected digital/social media accounts. In Pietrylo, an employee "did not feel free" to deny her boss access to a password protected MySpace account. The jury found that the employer violated the Stored Communications Act and the case was upheld on appeal. Therefore, since students "may not feel free" to deny their athletic departments and/or third parties access to their password protected social media accounts these services may be advising schools to violate the Stored Communications Act.
Since requesting employees to provide access to their password protected social media accounts has been found to violate the Stored Communications Act, it may also violate the Stored Communications Act for NCAA schools to "request" access to their students' password protected social media accounts. Requiring public school students to download applications and/or Facebook Friend university employees or agents may also violate the 1st and 4th Amendments along with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and multiple other federal and state laws.
The bottom line is that schools that engage UDiligence or Varsity Monitor may be paying $10,000 plus dollars per year for a service that may be creating more problems than it solves.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Schools May Need a Search Warrant To Access Their Student-Athletes' Personal Password Protected Electronic Accounts
According to the Penn State Daily Collegian, Penn Sate Police seized illegal drugs and paraphernalia from the home of one of their football players. Police had entered the home of a current and former student-athlete to investigate a break-in. Upon realizing there may be illegal drugs, it appears the police obtained a search warrant.
Since in the real world a search warrant is generally required to obtain evidence in one's real home, a search warrant is also generally required in the digital world to search one's password protected digital home. In order for a public school to obtain access to the password protected personal social media and digital accounts (non-school issued) of their student-athletes they may need a court order.
A public school may not require a student to utilize the services of UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Centrix Social, or any other social media monitoring company in order to keep his or her scholarship and may not retaliate against a student for refusing to provide access absent a court order.
Therefore, if a student at a public school refuses to provide UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Centrix Social, other social media monitoring companies, or school employees their personal social media or personal digital account information and the school punishes the student in any manner for refusing to do so the student may have multiple causes of action against the school. The 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments along with the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, and multiple state laws may be implicated in social media monitoring.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Since in the real world a search warrant is generally required to obtain evidence in one's real home, a search warrant is also generally required in the digital world to search one's password protected digital home. In order for a public school to obtain access to the password protected personal social media and digital accounts (non-school issued) of their student-athletes they may need a court order.
A public school may not require a student to utilize the services of UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Centrix Social, or any other social media monitoring company in order to keep his or her scholarship and may not retaliate against a student for refusing to provide access absent a court order.
Therefore, if a student at a public school refuses to provide UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Centrix Social, other social media monitoring companies, or school employees their personal social media or personal digital account information and the school punishes the student in any manner for refusing to do so the student may have multiple causes of action against the school. The 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments along with the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, and multiple state laws may be implicated in social media monitoring.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Multi-Milion Dollar Jury Verdict Against Virginia Tech Proves Schools Should Not Create A Duty To Social Media Monitor
The 2007 Virginia Tech massacre that left 33 dead on campus was a terrible tragedy. Earlier today, a jury found Virginia Tech negligent for its delay in warning its campus about the first shootings. Two of the families of those who were killed were awarded $4 million dollars each by a jury.
This case demonstrates why schools should not utilize the services of social media monitoring companies to review the password protected content of their students. On March 12, 2012, the NCAA stated that there is no "blanket duty on institutions to monitor social networking sites." Therefore, if there is no blanket compliance duty to social media monitor why create a legal duty to do so which may lead to multi-million dollar judgements for negligent social media monitoring?
After the the University of North Carolina Public Infractions Report was released, Varsity Monitor, a company that sells social media monitoring services responded to a Tweet that links to an article where I am quoted by Tweeting, "It is still best practice for the athletic dept to continue to monitor social media for brand and athlete protection & edu" (see below):
Now that two $4 million dollar jury verdicts have been returned against an academic institution for a delay in properly warning its students about a killer being on the loose on campus, imagine if a school follows the above advice by Varsity Monitor and a tragedy occurs that social media monitoring should have warned against but did not? Instead of multiple $4 million dollar jury verdicts would it be multiple $25 million or $50 million or $100 million dollar negligent social media monitoring jury verdicts?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
This case demonstrates why schools should not utilize the services of social media monitoring companies to review the password protected content of their students. On March 12, 2012, the NCAA stated that there is no "blanket duty on institutions to monitor social networking sites." Therefore, if there is no blanket compliance duty to social media monitor why create a legal duty to do so which may lead to multi-million dollar judgements for negligent social media monitoring?
After the the University of North Carolina Public Infractions Report was released, Varsity Monitor, a company that sells social media monitoring services responded to a Tweet that links to an article where I am quoted by Tweeting, "It is still best practice for the athletic dept to continue to monitor social media for brand and athlete protection & edu" (see below):
Now that two $4 million dollar jury verdicts have been returned against an academic institution for a delay in properly warning its students about a killer being on the loose on campus, imagine if a school follows the above advice by Varsity Monitor and a tragedy occurs that social media monitoring should have warned against but did not? Instead of multiple $4 million dollar jury verdicts would it be multiple $25 million or $50 million or $100 million dollar negligent social media monitoring jury verdicts?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)