Social Media Reputation, Sexting, and Privacy

If you have been given a second or third chance to rebuild your reputation don't ruin it with a bunch of sexts. Last night, The New York Post reported that former Congressman Anthony Weiner was sexting another woman who was not his wife. In the past five years, this is the third time he has been publicly caught for this type of behavior.

Weiner's sexting cost him his job as a Congressman in 2011, his chance to become the mayor of New York City in 2013, and now his marriage.  In addition to his marriage, multiple news organizations such as NY1 and The New York Daily News have either suspended or terminated their relationship with him.  In other words, sexting has destroyed his personal life and his career as a politician/political pundit.  

While the American public loves a great comeback story, this time may be different for Weiner.  One of his sexts included a photo of his son lying next to him in bed with his shirt off. The sexts associated with his son may lead to an inquiry into potential child endangerment charges and/or utilized by his soon to be ex-wife wife in a custody battle. While the American public generally forgives those involved in sex scandals, they may not forgiving this time because a young child was unnecessarily dragged into Weiner's troubling personal activities.

I have advised many clients over the years who have either lost their jobs due to sexting, been blackmailed due to dumb online posts, or had their personal lives destroyed (i.e. marriage dissolved or personal relationship ended) due to inappropriate social media activity.  My job is to protect my clients' reputation.  Unfortunately, too often clients and potential clients contact me for counsel after an activity has been exposed.  In general, if they would have been proactive and sought advice prior to their activity becoming public their post incident options would be much different.    

During Weiner's 2011 sexting scandal, I spoke with several media outlets about his social media behavior and the law.  His 2013 sexting scandal and this current incident demonstrates continued poor judgement.  It appears that in the five years since Weiner resigned from Congress due to inappropriate social media activity he hasn't learned anything about social media, reputation, or personal privacy.     

The bottom line is that you must be careful every time you send a digital message.  You never know whom you are really talking with on the Internet.  

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.   

Microsoft Takes A Stand Against Online Violence and Hate Speech

According to Business Insider, Microsoft is making it easier to report online threats and abuse. The company has created a new form to report content posted on its consumer services that may constitute online violence or hate speech.

Some of the content that may constitute violations against Microsoft's new policy includes: postings that advocate violence based upon age, disability, gender, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. The policy specifically states, "[p]lease note that not all content that you find offensive is considered hate speech and, in reviewing your report, Microsoft may choose to take no action."

For years, the Internet has been the Wild Wild West when it comes to speech. Sometimes this a good thing while in other instances this atmosphere has created some very troubling situations. Microsoft's new policy is a positive development that is worth trying.

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.   

Bank Privacy in the Social Media Age

Have you ever read the annual bank privacy notices that you receive in the mail? If not, it may be a good time to do so.  The FDIC has a website filled with information regarding how banks may protect or utilize your personal financial information for purposes other than account maintenance.

I recently updated some of my privacy choices for one of the banks I do business with and found it to be more cumbersome than anticipated.  I initially tried to make the appropriate updates online but the process was not consumer friendly so I contacted my bank.  The choices I made to help better protect my privacy and reputation included: Do not call with bank offers; Do not email with bank offers; Do not send me offers in the mail from the bank; and Do not share my personal financial information with bank affiliates or third parties.

I can't recall the last time this bank sent me an offer that was worth taking advantage of and I have never received an offer from one of this bank's affiliates or a third party that does business with the bank that was worth accepting.  In general, I have found these marketing offers to be worthless and a waste of my time.

The stronger your privacy choices are the less likely you will become a target of a scam. Protecting your privacy will help better protect your personal and professional reputation.    

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.    

Feds To Protect Social Media Reputation of Nursing Home Residents

On Friday, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that it would crack down on nursing home operators whose employees record and post on social media demeaning audio, images, and video of their residents.  

ProPublica recently documented almost fifty incidents during the past several years where nursing home and assisted living facility employees took unauthorized abusive photos of their patients and posted them online without permission.  ProPublica's investigation prompted Sen. Charles Grassley to contact the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights to work on a solution to this increasingly troubling problem.  

Posting photos of others in vulnerable positions is not just a problem in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and in hospitals, it is also a problem in other areas where people may unclothe. For example, earlier this year, 2015 Playboy Playmate of the Year Dani Mathers took a naked photo of a fellow gym member of LA Fitness getting out of the shower and posted it on Snapchat for "sh#ts and giggles". 

Social media abuse is increasing faster than the law can keep up. Therefore, it is imperative for companies to ensure that their employees are properly trained about these issues by legal experts to avoid easily preventable multi-million dollar social media privacy lawsuits.  

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.    

Pokemon Go, Augmented Reality, and Legal Liability

Pokemon Go is the hottest mobile game sweeping the world.  It can easily be downloaded onto a mobile device and it incorporates the physical world into the virtual world.  In other words, its an augmented reality game.

Pokemon Go uses your phone's GPS and camera while you play the game.  In addition, Techcrunch has reported that the game wants permission to collect a tremendous amount of your personal information.  Generally, you should just say no to allowing for this type of personal data collection.  

While there are thousands of games that can be downloaded onto your phone this appears to be the first popular augmented reality mobile game that has gained international traction.  It has become so popular that criminals are utilizing it to rob and harm users.  According to published reports, at least 9 Pokemon Go users have been lured and robbed while using the app.

It may be a matter of when and not if a Pokemon Go user who has become a victim of one of these crimes sues the game's publisher for creating an "attractive nuisance" or some other type of tort.  Due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act it may be difficult for a potential Pokemon Go plaintiff to win a lawsuit based upon this or similar causes of action.

The bottom line is that users must understand the risks inherent when downloading and utilizing digital games.  Just because something may look harmless on your phone, that doesn't make it necessarily so.

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved. 

Will Dallas Police Tweet Create Millions In Legal Liability?

Social Media has changed our society forever.  Our physical lives have become so intertwined with our digital lives that it is difficult to keep them separate.  Unfortunately, many people, businesses, government entities, schools, and other organizations still don't have a clue about the legal ramifications of every single Tweet, post, snap, livestream, etc...

During the past several days, we have had multiple terrible tragedies occur that were either streamed live on Facebook or posted online soon after the incidents occurred.  The facts surrounding the shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana where police officers shot and killed African-American men who may have been armed but not brandishing their weapons or acting in a menacing way are very troubling.  Due to the proliferation of cell phones and social media, footage of these incidents and/or aftermath have been viewed and shared millions of times around the world before the authorities have had the time to investigate what happened.  

Unfortunately, it appears that many government agencies do not understand the legal implications of social media.  A case in point is what happened in the aftermath of the terrible tragedy in Dallas where at least 12 police officers were shot and 5 tragically killed in a senseless attack on law enforcement who were at a peaceful protest for the shootings that occurred in Louisiana and Minnesota. According to multiple published reports, the shooter "wanted to kill white people, especially white officers".

In the chaos that ensued after the shootings, the Dallas Police Department Tweeted out a photo with the caption:  "This is one of our suspects. Please help us find him!"  Within hours of the Tweet, the person pictured in the photo had allegedly received thousands of death threats. This person ended up not being connected in any way to the Dallas tragedy and was just a person exercising his First and Second Amendment rights in a public street during a peaceful protest.  

I am not sure who on the Dallas Police Department published the irresponsible Tweet but it may create tremendous legal liability for the agency.  In 2013, The New York Post settled a lawsuit for inferring that a couple of innocent people were involved in the Boston Marathon terrorist attack. Seventeen years earlier, the 1996 terrorist bombing at the Atlanta Olympics made a pariah out of Richard Jewell after law enforcement carelessly leaked his name to the media as the prime suspect in that terrible attack.  

Since 2011, the Dallas Police Department has spent approximately $6 million dollars on lawsuit settlements.  Most of those settlements were related to police brutality and other misconduct issues. I am not aware of a case where the police department has created a a social media fire storm that put an innocent man's reputation and safety at risk.        

The bottom line is that organizations need to better understand the legal and societal issues inherent with social media.  This includes better policies, education, and training. Over the years, I have seen too many entities create bad policies and not hire the right people to properly advise, educate, and train their employees about digital issues.  

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved. 

Cheating Website Ashley Madison Investigated By FTC

Last year, the website Ashley Madison was hacked and the personal information of its users was uploaded online.  This wasn't just any website, it was one that catered to people looking to cheat on their significant other.  Subsequently, the company's CEO resigned and its revenues drastically decreased.  

Soon after the hack was reported, I stated that "it would not surprise me if the FTC became involved in the matter". It appears that the FTC has decided to investigate the company because according to Reuters it has opened an investigation into Ashley Madison's creation of fake female profiles or fembots to increase user engagement with its male customers.  Hiring companies that specialize in creating misleading daily active users (DAU's) or other metrics is such a common phenomena that on the season finale of HBO's Silicon Valley this issue became what appears to be an integral part of the series moving forward.  

There is a tremendous amount of fraud online because it is very difficult for perpetrators to be exposed and held accountable for their actions. The digital space is teaming with not just unethical companies but also "self described experts" that intentionally mislead others about their background and service offerings to build their reputation. 

While its too early to speculate on the focus of the FTC investigation, this should be a wake up call regarding trusting companies or "self described online experts" with your organizations' sensitive data.  

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved. 

BREXIT Will Alter Technology Public Policy, Privacy, and the Law

The votes have been counted regarding the BREXIT which was the referendum on whether Great Britain would stay in the European Union or leave and the result is that the UK will exit the EU.  The vote to leave won by more than a million votes (52%-48%; 17,410,742-16,141,241).

In the short term, stock markets around the world are plunging due to the uncertainty. However, when the dust has settled the legal and regulatory work on how to adjust to this change in relationship will begin. While the vote will have a tremendous effect on many international issues, it appears that the UK's data protection rules may be unaffected.  In the short term, this appears so; however, in the long term this may change.

The vote was a surprise to many lawyers and technology public policy analysts and this is demonstrated by the lack of planning in the event that the UK voted to leave the EU. Will other countries follow the UK's lead and will this create new alliances? While current trade deals may not be affected by the vote, new rules and regulations will be needed and future trade deals involving the UK and the EU will need to account for this result.  

Change is generally hard.  The people of the UK have spoken and in a democracy the will of the people must be followed.  Even though it is too soon to speculate on how this vote will ultimately affect technology public policy and privacy issues there are a lot of unanswered legal issues surrounding the process in which the UK will leave the EU.

 Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq.  All rights reserved. 

Florida Prosecutor's Reputation Destroyed Over Facebook Comments

Be careful what you say online because it may come back to hurt you.  Unfortunately, too many people don't heed this advice and this time an attorney has forever harmed his reputation because of unprovoked online posts. Florida Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis was suspended for posting online inflammatory messages about the city of Orlando in wake of the tragic nightclub terrorist attack.  His comments violated his employer's social media policy.

It appears that Mr. Lewis has been investigated for previously posting inappropriate online comments.  Just because you have a right to say something doesn't mean its a good idea to do so.  For years, people have felt less inhibited to attach their names to very incendiary online comments because its so easy to do so from the comfort of your own home.  Unfortunately, many people don't realize that comments meant for just friends or family may be seen around the world in just seconds.

Will Mr. Lewis be passed over for promotion because of this issue?  Will Mr. Lewis' online comments encourage his employer to terminate his employment for this or other behavior?  Will his online activities hurt his ability to transition to another employer?

In the Digital Age, it is imperative to understand how the Internet may help or harm your personal and professional reputation.

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq.  All rights reserved.

Hulk Hogan Awarded $115 Million In Gawker Naked Video Lawsuit

Privacy still matters in the Digital Age.  A Florida state jury awarded former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan $115 million dollars in a lawsuit against the online publication Gawker for publishing a video of him taken without his consent of him having sex with his former best friend's wife.

$55 million dollars of the jury's award was for economic harm and $60 million dollars was for emotional distress.  Punitive damages may also be awarded next week so its possible the award may substantially increase.

The recent Erin Andrews $55 million dollar Internet naked video award set the bar for privacy violations in the Digital Age and the Hogan case appears to have taken it several steps further. While both of these cases may be appealed and its doubtful that either will ever receive close to the figures that these juries have awarded, these awards demonstrate that the public is ready to punish those who destroy the personal privacy of others on the Internet.    

Copyright 2016 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Judicial Redress Act Signed

In a positive development, President Obama has signed the Judicial Redress Act yesterday.  The new law will enable citizens of some of our allies to sue the U.S. government for violating their personal privacy rights.

The bill passed with bipartisan support in both the U.S. House and Senate and signed by the President soon after he received the bill.  The enactment of this piece of legislation was needed in order for the new U.S.-EU Privacy Shield Agreement to move forward in Europe.  

The bottom line is that the enactment of the Judicial Redress Act extends some of the privacy rights our citizens have to the citizens of our allies and demonstrates that our country is serious about protecting the personal privacy of their citizens.  This signals that the U.S. may be moving towards ensuring stronger digital privacy rights when it comes to matters that may affect international commerce.  

Copyright 2016 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

NFL Star Files Twitter Lawsuit Against ESPN

According to The New York Post, New York Giants star Jason Pierre-Paul has filed a lawsuit against ESPN and one its reporters, Adam Schefter, for Tweeting a photo of his medical records.  Last July 4th, Pierre-Paul was involved in a fireworks accident that severely damaged one of his hands and the incident created a feeding frenzy among the media to determine the extent of Pierre-Paul's injuries.  

Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the hospital and its employees owed a duty of medical privacy to Pierre-Paul.  The media is not a covered entity under HIPAA so it doesn't apply to ESPN or Schefter.  It has been reported that the hospital that treated Pierre-Paul has already settled with him most likely because it had the most to lose if the matter went to trial since it was a covered entity under HIPAA.

While HIPAA doesn't cover ESPN/Adam Schefter's actions, Pierre-Paul may have an actionable claim under Florida state law or common law. If ESPN/Adam Schefter contacted me before posting Pierre-Paul's medical records on Twitter, I would have advised against Tweeting out the photo or posting it online on another platform due to potential legal liability. While its too soon to speculate on how Florida state law or common law may affect the outcome of this case, it should make people think long and hard before they post the medical records of others online without expressed written consent.    

I have previously written about ESPN's corporate social media policy that covers its reporters here and here.  The bottom line is that professional sports teams, athletes, and those that work in the sports field need to become better educated about the legal implications of their actions whenever they utilize digital platforms. One wrong post or action/inaction that leads to a digital post may create millions of dollars in legal liability.  

Copyright 2016 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Apple vs. the FBI: We Can Have Both Privacy And Security

Can we have both privacy and security?  That is a question that has been popular since 9/11/2001.  I believe we can have both.  As someone who personally witnessed the terrorist attacks on The World Trade Center from a couple of blocks away (and became homeless because of them and eventually moved), I am fully well versed on these issues from the security side.  As an attorney who focuses on technology and privacy issues and who has advocated for stronger personal privacy laws on the state and federal level, I also understand the inherent privacy issues.

To recap the latest privacy vs. security debate: the U.S. Justice Department is demanding that Apple help unlock an iPhone that was utilized by the San Bernardino terrorists who killed 14 people and injured 22 in 2015.  Without getting too technical, the FBI has requested (there has been multiple requests/back and forth between the parties) that Apple create software or disable some security protections on an iPhone that would weaken its encryption to allow the FBI to ensure that it may access the contents on the device.  According to The New York Times, the FBI has also requested that Apple assist it with unlocking at least 9 other iPhones.

Weakening encryption or creating back doors into our technology may sound like a good idea for this one case; however, there are and will be other cases where similar requests will be made to access information stored on electronic devices.  If the FBI is provided a back door for this one case, security services from others countries will also demand one for their cases (there could be demands for access to phones belonging to government political opponents or to whistle blowers) as well. In addition, hackers may also utilize back doors which would harm the privacy and personal security of all of us.

I am in favor of law enforcement being able to access digital content when a valid warrant has been obtained.  However, the legal process needs to be followed before content requested is turned over. In general, a major problem with our current legal process is that our digital laws are outdated. For example, the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act which governs email access was created before we had smart phones and the Internet as we know it.  The judiciary is stuck trying to interpret laws that are woefully out of date.

Congress must step up to fix this process.  Bills such as the Email Privacy Act, and the Law Enforcement Access To Data Stored Abroad Act-LEADS need to be enacted because these bills demonstrate that government is willing to update our laws to better reflect how we utilize technology. Absent a legislative fix, private industry has a challenge when law enforcement makes certain demands which are more than just data requests. Should they comply absent trying to block these demands through the courts or should they fight law enforcement demands via a flawed legal process?

This case and others like it demonstrate the need for more dialogue on these issues and the enactment of legislation that provides clearer guidance on how to handle these issues. Technology is moving too fast to leave it solely up to the judiciary to try to interpret how laws enacted decades ago for a different time should apply in the Digital Age.  Our personal privacy and national security demand that Congress and the White House work on a long term solution to these important privacy and security issues.

Copyright 2016 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.  

US-EU Safe Harbor Deadline Passes Without A New Data Transfer Deal

According to The New York Times, United States (US) and European Union (EU) officials were unable to reach an agreement on an updated International Safe Harbor agreement before the January 31st deadline. The agreement covered how digital data (i.e. social media content, financial data, etc..) could be transferred between the continents.

The Safe Harbor Agreement that was implemented in 2000 between the US and EU contained principles that allowed companies (i.e. tech companies and other multi-national companies) to comply with EU data protection laws when moving data from Europe to the United States.  US companies that process and/or store individuals' data may self certify that they adhere to 7 principles that comply with the EU's data protection laws.

The 7 principles include:  notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement.  The initial Safe Harbor agreement was meant to be an interim agreement; however, it lasted approximately 15 years.  A couple of years ago, EU and US regulators began negotiating an updated agreement to take into account how technology has changed over the years. Last October, before a new agreement was finalized, the current one was invalidated by the European Court of Justice via a compliant from Austrian privacy advocate Max Schrems.  Mr. Schrems gained publicity several years ago for his privacy advocacy that was highlighted in the documentary Terms and Conditions May Apply when he demonstrated how much data Facebook was collecting about each of its EU users.  

Now that the deadline has passed, what comes next?  According to The New York Times, the sides still have a lot of details to work out. Therefore, until a formal announcement is made it is premature to speculate on the next step.  As I told LAW360 the other day, businesses need certainty regarding transatlantic data transfers and if an agreement is not forthcoming companies will need a Plan B. 

If consumer groups file complaints as The New York Times indicated may occur, these issues may need to be adjudicated via the courts. At this point, uncertainty is the status quo and this may create unintended service disruptions for companies that transfer digital data between the continents. My hope is that an agreement is reached sooner rather than later that is flexible enough to account for future technology changes.  

Copyright 2016 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

How Much Is Your Data Worth To Facebook?

Facebook recently released its fourth quarter 2015 earnings and it demonstrated that the social media giant is hitting its stride.  It made an average of $3.73 off each of its users around the world.  However, in the United States and Canada, it made an average of $13.54 off each of its users.

What do these figures mean exactly?  Well, it demonstrates that there is value in the information you provide to Facebook in exchange to utilize their service.  Therefore, every time you provide Facebook information about your personal life (i.e. date of birth, marital status, kids, etc...), upload a photo, "like" a corporate page, etc...that is data that may be sold to data brokers, advertisers, and others.  There is tremendous value in your personal information.

Due to Facebook's very troubling privacy policy and data usage practices, I don't trust the platform with my personal data and/or my family's information.  I have limited personal information on my Facebook account with intentionally misleading content to protect my family's personal privacy and safety.  Your Facebook account may create tremendous legal problems for yourself and put you and your family's personal safety at risk so the value of your data should be a wake up call.

If someone wants to get in touch with me they can call me or email me.  Those who want to say hello know that poking me via Facebook will not get my attention.  It never has and never will.

Copyright 2016 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Will Twitter's New Rules Lead To An NRA Account Suspension?

In order to post to most websites and social media platforms you click "I agree" to their terms of service.  In many instances the terms provide platform owners great flexibility on how to deal with visitors to their websites.  In other words, if you want to play in their sandbox you need to agree to their rules.

Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that Twitter changed its rules at the end of last year in an attempt to limit harassment.  In particular, Twitter's new rules state:     

Any accounts and related accounts engaging in the activities specified below may be temporarily locked and/or subject to permanent suspension.

• Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.
• Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. Some of the factors that we may consider when evaluating abusive behavior include:
• if a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;
• if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;
• if the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and
• if the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.
• Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.

Earlier today, The New York Daily News reported that an NRA controlled Twitter account tweeted a message with the photos of two Brooklyn state lawmakers with bullets next to their photos.  This Tweet appears to have been in reaction to new legislation announced that would limit ammo purchases in the state of New York.  Does the Tweet referenced in The New York Daily News violate Twitter's new rules? 

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court in Elonis v. United States stated that mens rea (intent) was required to be proven under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) of the U.S. Code (federal law).  While the Elonis case focused on criminal prosecutions, it doesn't affect whether Twitter or other websites can make their own rules on how people may interact on their platforms.  Therefore, Twitter may at its own discretion decide to suspend the referenced account.

Copyright 2016 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

The EU's Push For Stronger Privacy Laws and Safe Harbor

Last week, the European Union took a step closer to enacting stronger digital privacy laws that will make it more challenging for companies to re-purpose the data they are collecting from their customers.  These new data protections would harmonize the privacy laws across the 28 members of the EU and stiffen the potential fines for violators up to 4% of a violator's global revenue.

The European Parliament and individual member governments still must pass the new proposals so it not certain that this is a done deal.  After all of the approvals have been obtained, the law may become effective within two years.

In general, I am in favor of strong industry self-regulation.  Unfortunately, this has not worked as hoped in the digital space.  Some companies are collecting massive amounts of personal information about their users and then utilizing the data for opaque secondary uses (i.e. selling the content to data brokers, psychological experiments, etc...).  Because of these non-transparent abuses, EU lawmakers felt it was time to act to reign in these practices.

Some positive aspects of these reforms provide users the right to know why they are being profiled, how they are being labeled, who is using their personal data, etc... This type of transparency will lead to greater accountability and hopefully lead to some companies changing their troubling privacy policies and data usage practices.  While it may be wishful thinking, I am optimistic that these new laws will convince U.S. law makers and regulators to push for some of these much needed reforms because there is little transparency in the data collection and usage industry.  

This latest push for stronger EU privacy laws coincides with the negotiation for an updated Safe Harbor data transfer agreement which may soon replace the previous one that was invalidated earlier this year.  In our digital dependent economy, participants need to be able to transfer data between continents in a timely fashion. Therefore, I am cautiously optimistic that an updated Safe Harbor Agreement will be finalized early in the new year because in our interconnected world it is imperative for businesses to have legal certainty.  

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

Homeland Security Will Vet Visa Applicants' Social Media

The Department of Homeland Security will soon expand its vetting of visa applicants to include social media.  This expansion appears to be in direct response to the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.  Surprisingly, there was a secret policy in place that banned officials from reviewing applicants' social media content.

If visa applicants urge their digital connections/followers to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and its allies online, it wouldn't surprise me if they would follow through with physical acts of violence if they are allowed to enter our country.  In response to these revelations about this secret policy to not review visa applicants' digital life lawmakers are demanding a change in policy. 

Will U.S. visa applications soon include requests for usernames/account names of all of one's social media accounts? Will applicants be required to provide access to their password protected accounts. Will increased scrutiny help make us safer? There are many unanswered questions as to how the actually vetting will occur.  

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

EU Backs Down On Proposal To Raise Social Media Age Limit to 16

In the EU, there was a recent proposal to raise the age limit for children to access social media platforms to 16 years of age absent parental consent.  The idea behind the bill was to help better protect the personal privacy and safety of children.  Banning kids from being able to do something will only make them more interested in subject.  As a parent, I witness this phenomena every single day.

After much deliberation, the EU decided against raising the age limit for social media access to 16 years of age absent parental consent.  EU member states will be free to set their own age restrictions between 13 and 16 years of age.  The debate surrounding this issue was extremely interesting because it demonstrates that law makers around the world are beginning to better understand the issues surrounding unfettered data collection and usage. 

Its importance to have robust conversations on data protection and personal safety issues. Every day, our world is becoming more complex as more personal data is being generated and utilized in ways previously never envisioned so there is a need for these types of continuing conversations.  

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

E.P.A.'s Secret Social Media Campaign Violated The Law

According to The New York Times, the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) engaged in an illegal covert social media campaign to back an Obama administration rule that was intended to to increase protections for our country's streams and waters according to the Government Accountability Office (G.A.O.).

The E.P.A. disputed the G.A.O.'s findings and an official with the agency stated, "[w]e use social media tools just like all organizations to stay connected and inform people across the country about our activities...[a]t no point did the E.P.A encourage the public to contact Congress or any state legislature."

Under the law, federal agencies may not participate in lobbying. The G.A.O. stated that the E.P.A. violated the federal Anti-deficiency Act which prohibits federal agencies from spending money without authorization.  Violating this act may lead to fines and/or jail time.  While its highly unlikely that anyone will be fined or sent to jail for these activities this should serve as a wake up call to government agencies because utilizing social media for illegal activities may create tremendous legal issues that can lead to fines and/or imprisonment.   

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