Can Facebook Be Trusted With Personal Medical Information?

According to Reuters, Facebook wants to get into the healthcare business via your personal health care status.  The report states, "[t]he company [Facebook] is exploring creating online "support communities" that would connect Facebook users suffering from various ailments.  A small team is also considering new "preventative care" applications that would help people improve their lifestyles." 

Is Facebook a safe environment to share personal health information?  This is a question that Facebook users need to answer themselves.  Would I ever trust Facebook with my personal health information?  I don't utilize Facebook to communicate with my family or friends or for any reason other than to explore the constantly changing features on the platform.  For the past several years, I have only utilized Facebook for professional purposes since I don't trust the platform with my personal information.

If you watch Cullen Hoback's documentary Terms and Conditions May Apply you may better understand how Facebook utilizes your personal information.  If watching a documentary is not up your alley, I encourage you to read the clause on Facebook's Terms and Conditions that states, "...you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)."  In layman's terms by posting content on Facebook you agree to Facebook utilizing your content in any way it sees fit.

Last year, Forbes reported that Facebook entered into agreements with multiple data brokers to ensure that the personal information you post (i.e. your friends lists, status updates, likes, etc..) is provided to companies/shadowy entities that are creating detailed online and offline personal dossiers about people. Besides advertisers, the information posted on Facebook may be utilized by insurance companies to deny claims and/or employers to discriminate against employees, and colleges to turn down applicants.

If after reading the above you still want to share your personal medical information with Facebook that is your right.  When it comes to privacy, you don't know how valuable it is until you lose it.

Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.

New California Law Protects Minors From Digital Mistakes

A new California law is leading the way to protect our children's digital privacy.  Earlier today, Gov. Brown signed into SB-568 Privacy: Internet: Minors that will protect the online privacy of those under 18 years of age who reside in the State of California.  According to CA Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, the bill's sponsor, the legislation "requires all web sites, social media sites and apps to allow anyone under 18 to remove content they posted earlier."

The new law will become effective as of January 1, 2015.  It has two main provisions. It seeks to protect minors by generally prohibiting operators of digital platforms (such as web sites, online services, online applications, mobile apps, etc...) from knowingly marketing and advertising to a minor a broad range of products specified in the law.  Some of these products may include alcoholic beverages, firearms, ammunition, tobacco products, fireworks, lottery tickets, tattoos, drug paraphernalia.  In addition, the new law requires operators of digital platforms to notify minors of their rights to remove content or information they posted and honor their requests to remove such data, subject to specified conditions and exceptions.

California has become the first state to offer greater digital protections to minors than the recently revised Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.  While SB-568 is a win for the digital privacy of minors, those under 18 should not use this as an excuse to be reckless about their digital lives.  For example, the law does not enable a minor to require a digital platform remove content that another person posts about that minor.  In addition, Internet companies are only required to remove publicly available content a minor posts and not data that is not publicly viewable.

While SB-568 may help protect California minors from some digital mistakes that may harm their ability to gain acceptance into the college of their dreams, it should not replace educating our children about these issues.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.  

New Jersey Supreme Court: Police Need A Search Warrant To Track Cell Phones

New Jersey's Supreme Court has taken the Fourth Amendment and applied it to the Digital Age.  In a win for personal privacy, the police are now required to obtain a search warrant before receiving from cellphone service provides user tracking information.

This decision bolsters the position that we still have an expectation of privacy in the Digital Age.  Last year, Bob Sullivan of NBC News wrote about an in-depth investigation of how law enforcement officials were obtaining cell phone tracking information without a warrant all over the country.  This story was eye-opening and discussed some very troubling practices.

New Jersey's decision appears to be inspired by the Supreme Court's U.S. v. Jones case from last year.  In a 9-0 decision, the court basically ruled that we still have an expectation of privacy from the government digitally tracking us without a warrant.   

While law enforcement officials need to be able to utilize modern tools to track criminals, they still need to adhere to the principles our founding fathers put in place more than 200 years ago.  While more of our information is being put into electronic form, it is imperative that the laws to protect our personal privacy keep up with technology.

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.   

FTC To Kids' Mobile App Developers: More Transparency Needed

On December 10, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued its 2012 Mobile Apps for Kids: Disclosures Still Not Making the Grade report.  The overall theme of the report is that mobile app developers need to be more transparent about how they utilize the information they collect.  The report found that "many apps included interactive features or shared kids' information with third parties without disclosing these practices to parents."

This survey was a follow up to the FTC's February 2012 report Mobile Apps For Kids:  Current Privacy Disclosures are Disappointing.  In February 2012, the FTC's overall finding was that "little or no information was available to parents about the privacy practices and interactive features of the mobile apps surveyed prior to download".

Both of these reports demonstrate the need for the mobile apps industry to become more proactive to avoid greater regulation.  Even though the Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) has been trying to self-regulate through its privacy policy guidelines and other initiatives, it appears that many app developers have not followed the MMA's guidelines. Since it appears that many app developers have not been following the MMA's guidelines the FTC appears ready to act.

The FTC's mobile apps privacy reports appear to provide the evidence that an update to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is needed.  While these reports appear to indicate that our children's digital privacy needs to be better safeguarded, there have been concerns from Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the depth and breadth of the FTC's proposed updates. According to the New York Times, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Viacom, and Disney are some of the companies who have objected to some of the proposed updates to COPPA that have been submitted.    

In general, many people don't understand how mobile applications collect and utilize the data that they acquire.  Unfortunately, due to a lack of information available many parents and children may not be able to make informed decisions about how best to protect their digital privacy.  This lack of information may be caused by a lack of transparency.  For example, the new FTC report it found that "20% (81) of the apps reviewed linked to general disclosure information, including a privacy policy" (page 7).  While this is an improvement over the 16% (64) figure that was reported in the FTC's prior mobile apps privacy report, more transparency is needed so that parents and children may better understand how their personal information is being utilized by others.

Consumers have tremendous concerns about mobile data privacy.  For example, according to a September 2012 Pew Study, "54% of app users have decided to not install a cell phone app when they discovered how much personal information they would need to share in order to use it and 30% of app users have uninstalled an app that was already on their cell phone because they learned it was collecting personal information that they didn't want to share."  

The bottom line is that parents and children need to be provided more information regarding what personal digital data is collected and how it is utilized.  If a parent determines that it is acceptable for an app to collect and re-purpose his child's personal digital data that is his perogative.  However, that is a personal decision that is best handled by a parent.  Unless the moblie apps industry is able to effectively police itself and provide parents the information they need to make informed decisions about their children's digital privacy, more regulations are needed.

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.  

Twitter Hands Over Occupy Wall Street Tweets

According to The Associated Press, Twitter has complied with a judge's order to hand over the Tweets of an Occupy Wall Street protestor. Twitter was ordered by Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. to turn over the information by today or face steep fines if it refused to do so.

On April 23, 2012, I stated that, "Once a Tweet is public to the entire world you don't have an expectation of privacy even if the Tweet has been deleted. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner learned the hard way (no pun intended) that once you post something publicly you have no expectation of privacy.

On July 3, 2012, I stated that, "If the Tweets had been on a protected Twitter account then a warrant may have been required to access the Tweets. In general, I have no problem with law enforcement obtaining and utilizing social media evidence. However, the government must go through the proper legal channels to obtain, authenticate, and utilize social media evidence at trial.

On September 11, 2012, I stated, "while I applaud Twitter fighting for the digital privacy rights of its users, I believe that continuing to fight a subpoena for content that was once public is a losing battle. However, I believe that Twitter along with other social media companies should continue fighting for the personal privacy rights of its users."

There may be future situations where the facts may better support an expectation of privacy for the Tweeter. However, it appears that the Tweets requested by the Manhattan District Attorney were intended for the entire world to view after they were posted. Since the account that posted the requested Tweets did not activate its privacy settings, I believe it is very difficult to successfully argue that there is an expectation of privacy for the Tweets in question.

To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.