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.
Showing posts with label Social Media and the Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media and the Law. Show all posts
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
UK: Social Media Domestic Abuse May Lead To 5 Years In Jail
In the United Kingdom, a new law has gone into effect that will enable prosecutors to go after domestic abuse perpetrators who harm their victims online. Under this law, charges may be brought in domestic abuse matters where there is evidence of repeated controlling or coercive behavior.
Controlling or coercive behavior is defined as a continuing act or pattern of acts which are used to harm, punish, or frighten a victim. Some examples of repeated controlling or coercive behavior may include: monitoring a person via online communication tools (i.e. tracking apps on mobile devices), or threatening to reveal or publish private information.
While its too early to speculate how this new law will be applied, it demonstrates that it is imperative to understand the legal consequences of your online interactions. Controlling or coercive tweeting, snapping, pinning, or posting may lead to prison.
Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Court: Police May Create Fake Social Media Profiles To Catch Criminals
According to CNN, a federal judge recently ruled that law enforcement officials may create fake social media profiles to obtain access to a suspect's social media account. The police may entice suspects to "friend" them and use the information gleaned from their Facebook, Instagram, etc... accounts against them in court.
This ruling is not surprising. The police have utilized moles and undercover agents to gain access to crime syndicates and gangs for years and this ruling appears to extend this practice to the Digital Age. As long as the "friending" is mutual, meaning that a suspect allows a "fake profile" to access their account the "search" may be deemed consensual.
Facebook has protested law enforcement's use of fake profiles in the past. For example, several months ago, Facebook sent a letter to the DEA to demand that it stop creating fake accounts on their platform. Facebook cares about this issue, not because of the privacy implications to its users, but because it may interfere with its ability to monetize the data being created on their platforms. A fake account is worthless to data brokers, advertisers, etc....
I don't encourage anyone who values their privacy to utilize Facebook to post personal information. Everything one posts to Facebook may end up in the hands of data brokers, law enforcement officials, etc... Facebook is an advertising platform and its users are the products it sells to marketers and data brokers. I don't trust Facebook with my personal information. Should you?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
This ruling is not surprising. The police have utilized moles and undercover agents to gain access to crime syndicates and gangs for years and this ruling appears to extend this practice to the Digital Age. As long as the "friending" is mutual, meaning that a suspect allows a "fake profile" to access their account the "search" may be deemed consensual.
Facebook has protested law enforcement's use of fake profiles in the past. For example, several months ago, Facebook sent a letter to the DEA to demand that it stop creating fake accounts on their platform. Facebook cares about this issue, not because of the privacy implications to its users, but because it may interfere with its ability to monetize the data being created on their platforms. A fake account is worthless to data brokers, advertisers, etc....
I don't encourage anyone who values their privacy to utilize Facebook to post personal information. Everything one posts to Facebook may end up in the hands of data brokers, law enforcement officials, etc... Facebook is an advertising platform and its users are the products it sells to marketers and data brokers. I don't trust Facebook with my personal information. Should you?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
FTC Warns Children's Apps Maker About Potential COPPA Violations
The FTC recently sent a letter to a Chinese based children's app maker alleging that it may be in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). According to the allegations, "it appears the child-directed applications marketed by
the company, BabyBus, appear to collect precise geolocation information
about users" without parental consent.
COPPA requires companies collecting personal information from children under 13 to post clear privacy policies and to notify parents and get their consent before collecting or sharing any information from children. While this app is not the only one that has allegedly violated COPPA and/or collected more information than needed to operate, it demonstrates a very troubling trend in apps: privacy by design continues to be an afterthought.
While I believe the FTC's letter is a positive development, it demonstrates the need for constant vigilance to protect our children's privacy. In general, it is none of the app's business where my children live, go to school, play, etc....
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
COPPA requires companies collecting personal information from children under 13 to post clear privacy policies and to notify parents and get their consent before collecting or sharing any information from children. While this app is not the only one that has allegedly violated COPPA and/or collected more information than needed to operate, it demonstrates a very troubling trend in apps: privacy by design continues to be an afterthought.
While I believe the FTC's letter is a positive development, it demonstrates the need for constant vigilance to protect our children's privacy. In general, it is none of the app's business where my children live, go to school, play, etc....
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
A Sony Hack Lesson: Digital Privacy and Cyber Security Go Hand and Hand
The Sony hack has taught us many lessons about digital privacy and cyber security. One of the biggest lessons is to be careful about what you put in an email. Another is to ensure that proper email retention policies are in place. A third lesson is that employees need to be better trained about these issues. As privacy law expert Prof. Dan Solove recently stated, there are real harms when one's privacy is breached.
According to multiple published reports, the FBI has named North Korea as the prime suspect in the hacking attack. If North Korea directed or encouraged those responsible for the hack because it wasn't happy with the theme of the movie The Interview it opens up a new front on what companies will have to prepare for when a business decision may not be popular with a foreign government or a well funded adversary.
If a nation state such as North Korea or a well funded organization is determined to hack into a corporate computer system it will do so. Companies can take steps to reduce the risk by creating new digital policies, training their employees, installing new cyber security systems, taking certain systems offline, etc...
The Sony hack has exposed most if not all of its secrets for all to see. From the troubling gender pay gap to the leak of social security numbers, personal health care records, corporate budgets, etc...the hack has greatly damaged Sony's reputation. While Sony may eventually be able to recover from this very troubling matter, it wouldn't surprise me if multiple executives leave the company in the near future due to what is contained in their emails.
The bottom line is that the most state of the art cyber security system may not protect against human error or stupidity. Therefore, it is imperative to constantly train and educate employees about digital privacy and cyber security matters. Privacy is something we take for granted until it has been lost. With the right education and mindset, privacy and cyber security doesn't have to be a luxury.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to multiple published reports, the FBI has named North Korea as the prime suspect in the hacking attack. If North Korea directed or encouraged those responsible for the hack because it wasn't happy with the theme of the movie The Interview it opens up a new front on what companies will have to prepare for when a business decision may not be popular with a foreign government or a well funded adversary.
If a nation state such as North Korea or a well funded organization is determined to hack into a corporate computer system it will do so. Companies can take steps to reduce the risk by creating new digital policies, training their employees, installing new cyber security systems, taking certain systems offline, etc...
The Sony hack has exposed most if not all of its secrets for all to see. From the troubling gender pay gap to the leak of social security numbers, personal health care records, corporate budgets, etc...the hack has greatly damaged Sony's reputation. While Sony may eventually be able to recover from this very troubling matter, it wouldn't surprise me if multiple executives leave the company in the near future due to what is contained in their emails.
The bottom line is that the most state of the art cyber security system may not protect against human error or stupidity. Therefore, it is imperative to constantly train and educate employees about digital privacy and cyber security matters. Privacy is something we take for granted until it has been lost. With the right education and mindset, privacy and cyber security doesn't have to be a luxury.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Iowa Digital License App Has Major 4th Amendment Implications
Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to carry around a wallet with a driver's license, credit cards, ATM cards, health insurance cards, etc...? As Apple famously trademarked and states in some of its commercials, "There's an app for that". For almost every interaction we have in the real world, software developers are creating apps to allegedly make our lives "easier" and more "frictionless".
In the tech world, "frictionless" may mean making it very easy to "share your personal thoughts, viewing habits, etc...without violating privacy laws", or making it very easy to "make online purchases." This is why so many companies are rushing to create apps for users. Unfortunately, multiple FTC reports have found many apps lack proper disclosures which may in turn lead to data leakage which creates cyber safety challenges for users.
The latest app that aims to make our lives "easier" is an app that may replace a physical Iowa driver's license. At first glance, this sounds great. Since more and more people are using their smartphones to do every day tasks and these mini computers hold so much of our personal information why not utilize an app which would mean one less thing (physical driver's license) to carry around?
There are numerous questions that still need to be answered. If a person who uses the app is questioned by a police officer during a "routine traffic stop" or a "stop and frisk" and asked to show the driver's license app will a police officer be able to access other parts of the phone or will a password be needed? What happens if a text message, email, or phone call comes through at the moment the police officer is reviewing the app license? Will the police officer be able to see the sender of the message, or the contents of the communications, or the phone number of the caller? When downloading the app, will it request access to your contacts or want to see what other apps you have downloaded like Twitter?
According to the recent Supreme Court decision in Hein v. North Carolina, the police may stop a car based on a "reasonable" misunderstanding of the law. What if while reviewing a driver's license app a police officer "misunderstands the law" and searches your smartphone, or makes subtle threats about providing access to your smartphone?
The bottom line is that there are still many questions that need to be answered regarding this new app. As more and more of our lives become digital, it is imperative that app developers work closely with lawyers and regulators to ensure that privacy by design is part and parcel of the process. While we may not know all of the potential consequences of utilizing driver's license apps, it is important that we have a national conversation about these issues to ensure that our 4th amendment rights are properly protected in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
In the tech world, "frictionless" may mean making it very easy to "share your personal thoughts, viewing habits, etc...without violating privacy laws", or making it very easy to "make online purchases." This is why so many companies are rushing to create apps for users. Unfortunately, multiple FTC reports have found many apps lack proper disclosures which may in turn lead to data leakage which creates cyber safety challenges for users.
The latest app that aims to make our lives "easier" is an app that may replace a physical Iowa driver's license. At first glance, this sounds great. Since more and more people are using their smartphones to do every day tasks and these mini computers hold so much of our personal information why not utilize an app which would mean one less thing (physical driver's license) to carry around?
There are numerous questions that still need to be answered. If a person who uses the app is questioned by a police officer during a "routine traffic stop" or a "stop and frisk" and asked to show the driver's license app will a police officer be able to access other parts of the phone or will a password be needed? What happens if a text message, email, or phone call comes through at the moment the police officer is reviewing the app license? Will the police officer be able to see the sender of the message, or the contents of the communications, or the phone number of the caller? When downloading the app, will it request access to your contacts or want to see what other apps you have downloaded like Twitter?
According to the recent Supreme Court decision in Hein v. North Carolina, the police may stop a car based on a "reasonable" misunderstanding of the law. What if while reviewing a driver's license app a police officer "misunderstands the law" and searches your smartphone, or makes subtle threats about providing access to your smartphone?
The bottom line is that there are still many questions that need to be answered regarding this new app. As more and more of our lives become digital, it is imperative that app developers work closely with lawyers and regulators to ensure that privacy by design is part and parcel of the process. While we may not know all of the potential consequences of utilizing driver's license apps, it is important that we have a national conversation about these issues to ensure that our 4th amendment rights are properly protected in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Harvard, Digital Reputation, Social Media, and Chinese Food
Never put in an email anything that may embarrass you if it were to show up on the front page of the New York Times or in this case Boston.com. According to Boston.com, Harvard Business School Professor Ben Edelman got into an email war of words with a local Chinese food restaurant after he realized that its online menu had outdated takeout prices and that he was charged $4 dollars more than what was listed online.
Should the restaurant have an accurate online take out menu? Yes. Online prices should accurately reflect current prices. While Prof. Edelman cites potential violations of Massachusetts law, he could have also mentioned that the matter was a potential Article 5 Violation of the FTC Act regarding unfair and deceptive trade practices. Is a class action lawsuit or an FTC complaint coming soon?
Even though it appears that Prof. Edelman utilized his personal email account when interacting with the Chinese food restaurant, what if he utilized his professional account? Since Harvard has closely monitored the emails of some of its deans in the past, could this situation trigger Harvard to search through Prof. Edelman's Harvard account to determine if he has violated any of its rules regarding personal use of Harvard's computer accounts or systems?
Due to social media, every time Ben Edelman is Binged, Googled, Yahooed!, etc.. this situation may show up on the first page of his search results. Whenever I hear the name Ben Edelman, I will think about Chinese food and a $4 overcharge. However, this should also be a lesson to all businesses that they must ensure that their online advertised prices accurately reflect current prices.
The Digital Age has made our personal online activities more discoverable and it has eroded our personal privacy. Even though Prof. Edelman was right regarding the need for businesses to have the correct prices listed on their websites, the way he handled the situation may create some potential reputation issues for him both personally and professionally. The bottom line is that it is imperative to be careful whenever sending a digital correspondence.
UPDATE: 4:49pm
Boston.com is reporting that Prof. Edelman has released an apology. Here it is:
"Many people have seen my emails with Ran Duan of Sichuan Garden restaurant in Brookline. Having reflected on my interaction with Ran, including what I said and how I said it, it’s clear that I was very much out of line. I aspire to act with great respect and humility in dealing with others, no matter what the situation. Clearly I failed to do so. I am sorry, and I intend to do better in the future. I have reached out to Ran and will apologize to him personally as well.”
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Should the restaurant have an accurate online take out menu? Yes. Online prices should accurately reflect current prices. While Prof. Edelman cites potential violations of Massachusetts law, he could have also mentioned that the matter was a potential Article 5 Violation of the FTC Act regarding unfair and deceptive trade practices. Is a class action lawsuit or an FTC complaint coming soon?
Even though it appears that Prof. Edelman utilized his personal email account when interacting with the Chinese food restaurant, what if he utilized his professional account? Since Harvard has closely monitored the emails of some of its deans in the past, could this situation trigger Harvard to search through Prof. Edelman's Harvard account to determine if he has violated any of its rules regarding personal use of Harvard's computer accounts or systems?
Due to social media, every time Ben Edelman is Binged, Googled, Yahooed!, etc.. this situation may show up on the first page of his search results. Whenever I hear the name Ben Edelman, I will think about Chinese food and a $4 overcharge. However, this should also be a lesson to all businesses that they must ensure that their online advertised prices accurately reflect current prices.
The Digital Age has made our personal online activities more discoverable and it has eroded our personal privacy. Even though Prof. Edelman was right regarding the need for businesses to have the correct prices listed on their websites, the way he handled the situation may create some potential reputation issues for him both personally and professionally. The bottom line is that it is imperative to be careful whenever sending a digital correspondence.
UPDATE: 4:49pm
Boston.com is reporting that Prof. Edelman has released an apology. Here it is:
"Many people have seen my emails with Ran Duan of Sichuan Garden restaurant in Brookline. Having reflected on my interaction with Ran, including what I said and how I said it, it’s clear that I was very much out of line. I aspire to act with great respect and humility in dealing with others, no matter what the situation. Clearly I failed to do so. I am sorry, and I intend to do better in the future. I have reached out to Ran and will apologize to him personally as well.”
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Titan has installed hundreds of advertising beacons around NYC
Buzzfeed is reporting that the New York City government has allowed outdoor media company Titan to install hundreds of advertising beacons (small radio transmitters that may be used to track people's movements) in pay phones around the city. Beacons may be utilized to track your movements via cell phone for not just behavioral advertising, but also for nefarious spying purposes that may put cell phone users in harms way. Interestingly, there has been no public notice about this program so all the facts are hard to come by.
When this type of technology is deployed in a public space without the community's input it is very troubling. After hearing about this new program, the New York American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman denounced it. As a former New Yorker and regular visitor, I am very concerned about this development.
Should Titan (or any other company) have been allowed to install these beacons on public property in the first place? Should Titan be required to publicly list (i.e. transparency) where each of its beacons are located? Should Titan be required to place large signs next to their beacon locations so those who walk nearby are notified of this program? Will consumers who have been tracked by Titan without their knowledge or consent soon sue Titan or New York City for breaching their personal privacy? These are legitimate questions and concerns that require a national conversation.
For those who are care about their personal privacy and security, now is the time to stand up and be counted before it is too late.
UPDATE:
According to Buzzfeed, New York City has asked Titan to remove its beacons from city owned property and this may occur in the next several days. This 180 demonstrates the power of social media because within hours of this matter being reported on by Buzzfeed the beacons in question are planning to be removed.
Will Titan be required to answer the following questions: What type of data did its beacons collect on public property? From how many people did Titan's beacons collect information from? How much data did it collect? Will Titan delete all the data it has collected on public property? What were the start dates and what will be the exact end date of this program? For New York City, who authorized this program without public input? Will the public be asked the next time this or a similar issue occurs?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
When this type of technology is deployed in a public space without the community's input it is very troubling. After hearing about this new program, the New York American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman denounced it. As a former New Yorker and regular visitor, I am very concerned about this development.
Should Titan (or any other company) have been allowed to install these beacons on public property in the first place? Should Titan be required to publicly list (i.e. transparency) where each of its beacons are located? Should Titan be required to place large signs next to their beacon locations so those who walk nearby are notified of this program? Will consumers who have been tracked by Titan without their knowledge or consent soon sue Titan or New York City for breaching their personal privacy? These are legitimate questions and concerns that require a national conversation.
For those who are care about their personal privacy and security, now is the time to stand up and be counted before it is too late.
UPDATE:
According to Buzzfeed, New York City has asked Titan to remove its beacons from city owned property and this may occur in the next several days. This 180 demonstrates the power of social media because within hours of this matter being reported on by Buzzfeed the beacons in question are planning to be removed.
Will Titan be required to answer the following questions: What type of data did its beacons collect on public property? From how many people did Titan's beacons collect information from? How much data did it collect? Will Titan delete all the data it has collected on public property? What were the start dates and what will be the exact end date of this program? For New York City, who authorized this program without public input? Will the public be asked the next time this or a similar issue occurs?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Friday, October 3, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Google May Have A Strong Defense Against Hacked Celeb Photo Lawsuit Threat
Page 6 of the New York Post was the first media outlet to report that some of the celebrities whose photos were recently hacked may sue Google for not "expeditiously" removing links/images to/of their copyrighted nude photos. The lawyer, Marty Singer wrote a scathing letter to Google demanding it act "expeditiously" to remove the infringing content or face a lawsuit that may create $100+ million dollars in damages.
According to The New York Times, Marty Singer is "Guard Dog To The Stars (Legally Speaking)". In a profile from several years ago, Mr. Singer is quoted as saying, “We’re one of the few firms that sue; we don’t just send a letter.” While I admire Mr. Singer's work in protecting some of the most famous celebrities in the world, I wish him the best of luck and a very sympathetic court room if he follows through and sues Google for not responding "expeditiously" to his take down requests that are governed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
In 2010, I wrote about the challenges copyright holders have under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act regarding protecting their content in a digital world. At that time I stated,
"According to the Senate Report about the DMCA (S. Rep. 105-190 at 44), "[b]ecause the factual circumstances and technical parameters may vary from case to case, it is not possible to identify a uniform time limit for expeditious action." In my opinion, this indicates that a non-profit may be held to a different less onerous standard than a commercial entity. Since S. Rep 105-190 was created, technology has drastically changed and I do not believe it was the intent of the Senate to provide ISPs/OSPs wide latitude to remove infringing content at their leisure when even a minor delay in removal may cause serious financial repercussions to rights holders."
I further opined, "The DMCA's safe harbor provision is already tilted heavily in favor of ISPs/OSPs. Therefore, to level the playing field it is time for either Congress or the courts to declare that under the DMCA commercial entities have one business day to remove infringing content." Whether one business day is still an "expeditious" enough standard is debatable; however, at that time I thought it was a good starting point to begin the discussion.
Since 2010, neither Congress nor the courts have created a universal definition of the term "expeditiously". Google has one of the most technologically advanced data mining machines in the world so it most likely can do a better job of removing copyrighted nude photos and/or links to them from appearing on its platforms.
Unfortunately, removing content from the Internet is a lot like "whack a mole". When it has been removed from one website there is a chance it may appear on another platform. Due to the recent Right To Be Forgotten Ruling in Europe, Mr. Singer may have better luck if any of his clients are European Union citizens; however, this right appears to only apply to Google's European products/services and it is unclear exactly how this new right will be implemented.
From a legal perspective, does Google have a strong legal defense under the DMCA's safe harbor? In the 2013 Capital Records v. Vimeo case, a New York federal district court ruled that it was "expeditious" to take three and a half weeks to remove 170 infringing videos. While this ruling only applies to the Southern District of New York, it may provide persuasive opinion for other jurisdictions.
Here, it appears a couple hundred copyrighted photos may have been part of the take down requests and the time frame appears to be a couple of weeks. Since there is not a definitive legal standard regarding how "expeditiously" a digital platform must act to remove infringing content it appears Google may qualify for "Safe Harbor" protection. If Google is eventually sued for allegedly violating the DMCA regarding this matter, it should be able to mount a vigorous and most likely successful defense.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
According to The New York Times, Marty Singer is "Guard Dog To The Stars (Legally Speaking)". In a profile from several years ago, Mr. Singer is quoted as saying, “We’re one of the few firms that sue; we don’t just send a letter.” While I admire Mr. Singer's work in protecting some of the most famous celebrities in the world, I wish him the best of luck and a very sympathetic court room if he follows through and sues Google for not responding "expeditiously" to his take down requests that are governed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
In 2010, I wrote about the challenges copyright holders have under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act regarding protecting their content in a digital world. At that time I stated,
"According to the Senate Report about the DMCA (S. Rep. 105-190 at 44), "[b]ecause the factual circumstances and technical parameters may vary from case to case, it is not possible to identify a uniform time limit for expeditious action." In my opinion, this indicates that a non-profit may be held to a different less onerous standard than a commercial entity. Since S. Rep 105-190 was created, technology has drastically changed and I do not believe it was the intent of the Senate to provide ISPs/OSPs wide latitude to remove infringing content at their leisure when even a minor delay in removal may cause serious financial repercussions to rights holders."
I further opined, "The DMCA's safe harbor provision is already tilted heavily in favor of ISPs/OSPs. Therefore, to level the playing field it is time for either Congress or the courts to declare that under the DMCA commercial entities have one business day to remove infringing content." Whether one business day is still an "expeditious" enough standard is debatable; however, at that time I thought it was a good starting point to begin the discussion.
Since 2010, neither Congress nor the courts have created a universal definition of the term "expeditiously". Google has one of the most technologically advanced data mining machines in the world so it most likely can do a better job of removing copyrighted nude photos and/or links to them from appearing on its platforms.
Unfortunately, removing content from the Internet is a lot like "whack a mole". When it has been removed from one website there is a chance it may appear on another platform. Due to the recent Right To Be Forgotten Ruling in Europe, Mr. Singer may have better luck if any of his clients are European Union citizens; however, this right appears to only apply to Google's European products/services and it is unclear exactly how this new right will be implemented.
From a legal perspective, does Google have a strong legal defense under the DMCA's safe harbor? In the 2013 Capital Records v. Vimeo case, a New York federal district court ruled that it was "expeditious" to take three and a half weeks to remove 170 infringing videos. While this ruling only applies to the Southern District of New York, it may provide persuasive opinion for other jurisdictions.
Here, it appears a couple hundred copyrighted photos may have been part of the take down requests and the time frame appears to be a couple of weeks. Since there is not a definitive legal standard regarding how "expeditiously" a digital platform must act to remove infringing content it appears Google may qualify for "Safe Harbor" protection. If Google is eventually sued for allegedly violating the DMCA regarding this matter, it should be able to mount a vigorous and most likely successful defense.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Did Facebook's Real Name Policy Lead to the Killing of An Iraqi Mother By Militants?
The Associated Press has reported that militants belonging to the Islamic State group have murdered a human rights lawyer in Mosul, Iraq. According to the AP, "gunmen with the group's newly declared police force seized Samira Salih
al-Nuaimi last week in a northeastern district of the Mosul while she
was home with her husband and three children".
It has been reported that the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq believes her arrest was connected to Facebook messages she posted that were critical of the militants' destruction of religious sites in Mosul. This troubling execution demonstrates how dire the situation is in the Middle East.
Are militants social media monitoring the areas that are under their control? Are they buying social media monitoring services and deploying them to silence any dissent? If so, which programs are being utilized? Did Facebook's real name policy requirement make it easy for the militants to find and execute this lawyer and others who voice dissenting opinions on Facebook?
Facebook's real name requirement enables it to better track users for advertising and monetization purposes. The reason behind the policy is money. Facebook has deals in place with data brokers to enable them to combine people's online persona/activities with their offline activity. These agreements directly lead to the erosion of personal privacy. This policy may also discriminate against drag queens and other artists.
Now that it appears that militants are using Facebook's Real Name policy to silence and kill its critics will Facebook change this policy to better protect users?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
It has been reported that the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq believes her arrest was connected to Facebook messages she posted that were critical of the militants' destruction of religious sites in Mosul. This troubling execution demonstrates how dire the situation is in the Middle East.
Are militants social media monitoring the areas that are under their control? Are they buying social media monitoring services and deploying them to silence any dissent? If so, which programs are being utilized? Did Facebook's real name policy requirement make it easy for the militants to find and execute this lawyer and others who voice dissenting opinions on Facebook?
Facebook's real name requirement enables it to better track users for advertising and monetization purposes. The reason behind the policy is money. Facebook has deals in place with data brokers to enable them to combine people's online persona/activities with their offline activity. These agreements directly lead to the erosion of personal privacy. This policy may also discriminate against drag queens and other artists.
Now that it appears that militants are using Facebook's Real Name policy to silence and kill its critics will Facebook change this policy to better protect users?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Dr. Selfie, Joan Rivers, Social Media Privacy, and HIPAA Violations
CNN is reporting that while the late comedian Joan Rivers was under anesthesia during the procedure that led to her death one of the doctors took a selfie with her without her consent. If this allegation is true this is a blatant violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
This is not the first time a doctor has been accused of inappropriate digital behavior. Earlier this year, a Seattle doctor was accused of sexting during surgery. Last year, a doctor was accused of posting photos of a drunk emergency room patient online. There is no excuse for this type of behavior. Inappropriate digital interactions is not just a problem in the medical profession. An Arkansas judge recently was disbarred for leaking confidential information online about an adoption involving actress Charlize Theron.
Was Ms. Rivers' doctor so focused on getting the perfect selfie that the appropriate standard of care not followed? If it is proven that a doctor took an unauthorized selfie of Joan Rivers during a medical procedure the doctor should lose his medical license. Regardless of the medical examiners findings on the cause of death, the act of taking a selfie with a patient without consent who is being operated on may in and of itself create significant legal liability. There is no room in the medical profession for this troubling behavior.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
This is not the first time a doctor has been accused of inappropriate digital behavior. Earlier this year, a Seattle doctor was accused of sexting during surgery. Last year, a doctor was accused of posting photos of a drunk emergency room patient online. There is no excuse for this type of behavior. Inappropriate digital interactions is not just a problem in the medical profession. An Arkansas judge recently was disbarred for leaking confidential information online about an adoption involving actress Charlize Theron.
Was Ms. Rivers' doctor so focused on getting the perfect selfie that the appropriate standard of care not followed? If it is proven that a doctor took an unauthorized selfie of Joan Rivers during a medical procedure the doctor should lose his medical license. Regardless of the medical examiners findings on the cause of death, the act of taking a selfie with a patient without consent who is being operated on may in and of itself create significant legal liability. There is no room in the medical profession for this troubling behavior.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
California Enacts Yelp Bill To Protect Consumers Freedom of Speech
Earlier this week, California enacted a law that protects consumers from businesses that want to ban them from providing truthful negative online reviews. Yelp supported AB 2365 and stated, "AB 2365 makes it explicitly clear that non-disparagement clauses in
consumer contracts for goods or services in the state of California are
void and unenforceable. What this means is that individuals writing
online reviews in California are now further protected from those bad
actors who hide jargon in consumer contracts in attempts to prohibit you
from posting reviews -- positive or negative -- online."
I wrote about this legislation on April 23, 2014 and then again on August 30, 2014 because it is an important digital freedom of speech issue. According to the Digital Media Law Project, 28 states have Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statutes. States that have enacted Anti-SLAPP laws and/or recognized Anti-SLAPP protections via case law may provide some protections for their citizens.
While I believe Anti-SLAPP laws may help to ensure that citizens aren't silenced for publicizing unpopular opinions, they may not always protect consumers from sneaky terms of service that companies such as Kleargear.com may slip into their agreements with customers. Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me if more states enact similar "Yelp" inspired laws.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
I wrote about this legislation on April 23, 2014 and then again on August 30, 2014 because it is an important digital freedom of speech issue. According to the Digital Media Law Project, 28 states have Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statutes. States that have enacted Anti-SLAPP laws and/or recognized Anti-SLAPP protections via case law may provide some protections for their citizens.
While I believe Anti-SLAPP laws may help to ensure that citizens aren't silenced for publicizing unpopular opinions, they may not always protect consumers from sneaky terms of service that companies such as Kleargear.com may slip into their agreements with customers. Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me if more states enact similar "Yelp" inspired laws.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Online Bullies Target Robin Williams Daugther
I grew up watching Robin Williams and loved his work. When I ran into him in New York City late one night with a friend of mine about 11 years ago he was gracious and funny and even said, "nano nano". My condolences go out to his family.
It saddened me to read in the New York Daily News that Robin Williams daughter Zelda Williams was tormented and harassed online for the sole reason she is Robin Williams daughter. Due to disgusting and hateful things people said about her and/or her father, she stated that she will not utilize her public digital accounts for the near future. While Twitter "vows to improve" it policies after this incident, what does this really mean?
Ms. Williams just shockingly lost her famous father and within 24 hours was hounded so relentlessly online that it led her to stop posting publicly. What is wrong with our society? Ms. Williams has tried to accommodate her father's fans by sharing some intimate details of her personal life with him and is instead criticized for her actions. Instead of just thanking Ms. Williams for sharing some private moments with her dad and/or sending her condolences some people are tormenting her.
In the Digital Age, I still believe that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me" applies. While it may difficult to sometimes see the value of this adage it is more important than ever. The United States was built upon the foundation of free speech and what may be considered vitriol by one may be nothing more than a personal political opinion. Even though I find many anonymous online comments to be worthless, I still believe as our founding fathers did that one should have the right to publicly voice their opinions anonymously.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
It saddened me to read in the New York Daily News that Robin Williams daughter Zelda Williams was tormented and harassed online for the sole reason she is Robin Williams daughter. Due to disgusting and hateful things people said about her and/or her father, she stated that she will not utilize her public digital accounts for the near future. While Twitter "vows to improve" it policies after this incident, what does this really mean?
Ms. Williams just shockingly lost her famous father and within 24 hours was hounded so relentlessly online that it led her to stop posting publicly. What is wrong with our society? Ms. Williams has tried to accommodate her father's fans by sharing some intimate details of her personal life with him and is instead criticized for her actions. Instead of just thanking Ms. Williams for sharing some private moments with her dad and/or sending her condolences some people are tormenting her.
In the Digital Age, I still believe that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me" applies. While it may difficult to sometimes see the value of this adage it is more important than ever. The United States was built upon the foundation of free speech and what may be considered vitriol by one may be nothing more than a personal political opinion. Even though I find many anonymous online comments to be worthless, I still believe as our founding fathers did that one should have the right to publicly voice their opinions anonymously.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Foursquare App Update Harms User Privacy
According to the Wall Street Journal, as of 8/6/2014, "users who download or update the Foursquare app will
automatically let the company track their GPS coordinates any time their
phone is powered on. Foursquare previously required users to give the
app permission to turn on location-tracking.....Foursquare’s app goes beyond location-tracking features offered by
competitors. Social apps like Twitter collect GPS coordinates to give
users the option of sharing their location with friends, but don’t
collect this data when the app is off."
To justify Foursquare's privacy changes, founder Dennis Crowley stated "more users will be willing to share their location because they’re getting a more valuable service in return." Has Mr. Crowley read about the NSA Edward Snowden leaks? According to Wired, "[t]he data you share with Foursquare today could conceivably end up in the hands of the NSA, hackers, or private data brokers tomorrow."
The bottom line is that if you value your personal privacy and safety I would not recommend using the "new and improved" Foursquare. Do you want to share more personal information with data brokers, insurance companies, colleges, landlords, and future employers who may discriminate against you based upon your Foursquare usage? If so, Foursquare may be for you.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
To justify Foursquare's privacy changes, founder Dennis Crowley stated "more users will be willing to share their location because they’re getting a more valuable service in return." Has Mr. Crowley read about the NSA Edward Snowden leaks? According to Wired, "[t]he data you share with Foursquare today could conceivably end up in the hands of the NSA, hackers, or private data brokers tomorrow."
The bottom line is that if you value your personal privacy and safety I would not recommend using the "new and improved" Foursquare. Do you want to share more personal information with data brokers, insurance companies, colleges, landlords, and future employers who may discriminate against you based upon your Foursquare usage? If so, Foursquare may be for you.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Union Street Guest House Social Media Wedding Agreement Failure
Many companies still don't understand social media and the viral nature of the Internet. The latest corporate social media failure appears to have been brought to you by the hotel Union Street Guest House in Hudson, New York.
According to the New York Post, the Union Street Guest House allegedly inserts into its wedding agreements the phrase: “If you have booked the inn for a wedding or other type of event . . . and given us a deposit of any kind . . . there will be a $500 fine that will be deducted from your deposit for every negative review . . . placed on any internet site by anyone in your party.”
This is an outrageous clause for any hotel or business to put into their agreements. How is this clause being enforced? How does Union Street Guest House know if a negative poster is from your wedding/event party? What if an imposter makes multiple fake posts to cause the person who booked the party to incur multiple $500 fines? Does Union Street Guest House troll Yelp, Facebook, Twitter and try to match up their hotel guests with their social media accounts?
This situation reminds me of the Kleargear.com matter. Kleargear.com fined a customer $3,500 for a what appears to be a clearly deserved negative review. The company claimed that its terms of service allowed it to fine customers under its disparagement clause section. The customer sued and won $306,000.
The bottom line is that companies should not be in the business of trying to silence their customers via required non-disparagement clauses in their agreements. This is a very troubling trend that I believe will increase in the near future. Within minutes of the New York Post publishing its article about this matter, the Internet made an example out of Union Street Guest House. In less than 24 hours, the hotel received hundreds of negative reviews and then changed its policy.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
According to the New York Post, the Union Street Guest House allegedly inserts into its wedding agreements the phrase: “If you have booked the inn for a wedding or other type of event . . . and given us a deposit of any kind . . . there will be a $500 fine that will be deducted from your deposit for every negative review . . . placed on any internet site by anyone in your party.”
This is an outrageous clause for any hotel or business to put into their agreements. How is this clause being enforced? How does Union Street Guest House know if a negative poster is from your wedding/event party? What if an imposter makes multiple fake posts to cause the person who booked the party to incur multiple $500 fines? Does Union Street Guest House troll Yelp, Facebook, Twitter and try to match up their hotel guests with their social media accounts?
This situation reminds me of the Kleargear.com matter. Kleargear.com fined a customer $3,500 for a what appears to be a clearly deserved negative review. The company claimed that its terms of service allowed it to fine customers under its disparagement clause section. The customer sued and won $306,000.
The bottom line is that companies should not be in the business of trying to silence their customers via required non-disparagement clauses in their agreements. This is a very troubling trend that I believe will increase in the near future. Within minutes of the New York Post publishing its article about this matter, the Internet made an example out of Union Street Guest House. In less than 24 hours, the hotel received hundreds of negative reviews and then changed its policy.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC All rights reserved.
Friday, July 18, 2014
Social Media Evidence May Determine Who Shot Down Malaysian Plane
It appears that a Malaysian passenger jet may have been mistakenly shot down in the skies above territory that is in dispute between Ukraine and Russia. USA Today is reporting that rebels who may be backed by Russia may have arms capable of downing a passenger jet that is flying 20,000+ feet in the sky.
Photos of the tragedy have appeared online and it leads me to believe that the crash site may become contaminated. In this hyper-sensitive and viral world everything posted online about this tragedy is put under a microscope. For example, American Pie actor Jason Biggs Tweet “Anyone wanna buy my Malaysian Airlines frequent flier miles?” was deemed so offensive by the Internet community that he ended up issuing an apology after it went viral.
Entertainers and politicians do not have a monopoly on regretting their online posts. According to AFP, it appears that some Pro-Russian insurgents may also have itchy social media fingers because some of their online postings boasting about downing an airplane around the same time/place that the Malaysian jet went down have now been deleted. Since the crash site may become contaminated will social media become crucial evidence in determining who shot down the Malaysian passenger jet?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Photos of the tragedy have appeared online and it leads me to believe that the crash site may become contaminated. In this hyper-sensitive and viral world everything posted online about this tragedy is put under a microscope. For example, American Pie actor Jason Biggs Tweet “Anyone wanna buy my Malaysian Airlines frequent flier miles?” was deemed so offensive by the Internet community that he ended up issuing an apology after it went viral.
Entertainers and politicians do not have a monopoly on regretting their online posts. According to AFP, it appears that some Pro-Russian insurgents may also have itchy social media fingers because some of their online postings boasting about downing an airplane around the same time/place that the Malaysian jet went down have now been deleted. Since the crash site may become contaminated will social media become crucial evidence in determining who shot down the Malaysian passenger jet?
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
EPIC Files FTC Complaint over Facebook's Emotion Study
The Electronic Information Privacy Center (EPIC), a privacy advocacy group that has been performing great work for 20 years filed a complaint with the FTC alleging that Facebook's emotion study "deceived its users and violated the terms of a 2012 FTC consent decree." The complaint was filed right before the July 4th holiday weekend.
Facebook's refusal to issue an immediate apology regarding this issue demonstrates once again that the company is tone deaf when it comes to user privacy. I have documented Facebook's troubling position regarding digital privacy time and time and time, etc...again.
When I initially stated that Facebook's emotion study may have violated Facebook's FTC consent agreement early in the day on 6/30/14, I didn't see any other published articles mentioning this possibility. Soon after I posted my article, Forbes reported that Facebook changed its terms to allegedly allow user data to be utilized for "research" purposes 4 months after the study was completed.
There are many users, technologists, and members of the media who are drinking the Silicon Valley Cool-Aid and defending Facebook's (and other companies) troubling practices because privacy policies, along with terms of use, and data use policies are written so broadly in the hopes that the language allows for any type of data usage and/or manipulation. Just because one agrees to a troubling privacy policy/terms of use/data use policy clause in an agreement, that doesn't mean a court of law will automatically rule that the policy is legal and enforceable.
The common law blue pencil doctrine is utilized when contract clauses are ruled to be unreasonable and violate public policy. This doctrine enables courts to strike troubling clauses from executed agreements. Is it time for the courts to start "blue penciling" unreasonable privacy policies, terms of use, data use policies, etc...?
If some Silicon Valley companies don't start changing their data collection and usage practices it would not surprise me if the courts start flexing their blue pencil muscles to protect the personal privacy and safety of citizens in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Facebook's refusal to issue an immediate apology regarding this issue demonstrates once again that the company is tone deaf when it comes to user privacy. I have documented Facebook's troubling position regarding digital privacy time and time and time, etc...again.
When I initially stated that Facebook's emotion study may have violated Facebook's FTC consent agreement early in the day on 6/30/14, I didn't see any other published articles mentioning this possibility. Soon after I posted my article, Forbes reported that Facebook changed its terms to allegedly allow user data to be utilized for "research" purposes 4 months after the study was completed.
There are many users, technologists, and members of the media who are drinking the Silicon Valley Cool-Aid and defending Facebook's (and other companies) troubling practices because privacy policies, along with terms of use, and data use policies are written so broadly in the hopes that the language allows for any type of data usage and/or manipulation. Just because one agrees to a troubling privacy policy/terms of use/data use policy clause in an agreement, that doesn't mean a court of law will automatically rule that the policy is legal and enforceable.
The common law blue pencil doctrine is utilized when contract clauses are ruled to be unreasonable and violate public policy. This doctrine enables courts to strike troubling clauses from executed agreements. Is it time for the courts to start "blue penciling" unreasonable privacy policies, terms of use, data use policies, etc...?
If some Silicon Valley companies don't start changing their data collection and usage practices it would not surprise me if the courts start flexing their blue pencil muscles to protect the personal privacy and safety of citizens in the Digital Age.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Facebook's Unethical Experiment May Have Violated FTC Order
Facebook has proven once again that it does not care about its users' privacy and that it may manipulate their users' emotional well-being for corporate profit. In an explosive article in The Atlantic it is alleged that Facebook intentionally manipulated the news feeds of almost 700,000 users as part of an experiment about emotional contagion on social networks.
In the past, it appears Facebook related research was focused on analyzing the information users upload. In contrast, this appears to be the first time Facebook has publicly acknowledged that it was intentionally manipulating its users' news feeds for psychological experimentation. Is this the first time this has occurred? If not, is Facebook prepared to come clean about this matter and all similar user experiments?
According to the New York Times, "[t]he company [Facebook] says users consent to this kind of manipulation when they agree to its terms of service. But in the quick judgment of the Internet, that argument was not universally accepted." I have reviewed Facebook's Terms of Service and it appears it may be a legal super hero Plastic Man stretch (think South Park Humancentipad episode about terms of service) that users agreed to psychological experimentation by agreeing to Facebook's terms of service.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) which is located about a mile from my office has a very detailed history about the laws relating to the protection of human subjects who are part of an experiment. Did Facebook violate the spirit or the letter of any of these laws?
It would not surprise me if Facebook and/or other digital platforms update their terms of service to clearly state they are able to perform this type of troubling psychological testing on users. While it is too soon to speculate on whether the experiment abided by Facebook's terms of service and traditional subject informed consent rules, this should be a wake up call to regulators to look more closely at the data collection and usage practices of the digital ecosystem.
Did Facebook inform the FTC about this experiment during its 2012 investigation that culminated in the 2012 FTC Consent Order that alleged Facebook violated its users' privacy. Does performing psychological experiments on users without expressed informed consent violate this order?
The bottom line is that this should be a wake up call to those who post on Facebook and utilize platforms that use your personal information for behavioral advertising purposes and/or sell it to data brokers. As I stated on June, 12, 2014, "I don't advise anyone who values their privacy to post personal information to Facebook because it has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting user privacy." Facebook's latest actions demonstrate that it believes its users are nothing more than lab rats who give up all of their rights when agreeing to Facebook's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
In the past, it appears Facebook related research was focused on analyzing the information users upload. In contrast, this appears to be the first time Facebook has publicly acknowledged that it was intentionally manipulating its users' news feeds for psychological experimentation. Is this the first time this has occurred? If not, is Facebook prepared to come clean about this matter and all similar user experiments?
According to the New York Times, "[t]he company [Facebook] says users consent to this kind of manipulation when they agree to its terms of service. But in the quick judgment of the Internet, that argument was not universally accepted." I have reviewed Facebook's Terms of Service and it appears it may be a legal super hero Plastic Man stretch (think South Park Humancentipad episode about terms of service) that users agreed to psychological experimentation by agreeing to Facebook's terms of service.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) which is located about a mile from my office has a very detailed history about the laws relating to the protection of human subjects who are part of an experiment. Did Facebook violate the spirit or the letter of any of these laws?
It would not surprise me if Facebook and/or other digital platforms update their terms of service to clearly state they are able to perform this type of troubling psychological testing on users. While it is too soon to speculate on whether the experiment abided by Facebook's terms of service and traditional subject informed consent rules, this should be a wake up call to regulators to look more closely at the data collection and usage practices of the digital ecosystem.
Did Facebook inform the FTC about this experiment during its 2012 investigation that culminated in the 2012 FTC Consent Order that alleged Facebook violated its users' privacy. Does performing psychological experiments on users without expressed informed consent violate this order?
The bottom line is that this should be a wake up call to those who post on Facebook and utilize platforms that use your personal information for behavioral advertising purposes and/or sell it to data brokers. As I stated on June, 12, 2014, "I don't advise anyone who values their privacy to post personal information to Facebook because it has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting user privacy." Facebook's latest actions demonstrate that it believes its users are nothing more than lab rats who give up all of their rights when agreeing to Facebook's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Facebook's Expanded Behavioral Advertising Further Erodes User Privacy
According to the Wall Street Journal, "Facebook will soon begin using data it collects about users’ activities around the Web to better target ads on its service.....[f]or years Facebook has dropped small pieces of code on websites and in
mobile apps, through which it records users’ browsing habits and online
interests. Now it’s going to start using that information to help it
deliver personalized ads on Facebook."
The term "personalized ads" means behavioral advertising. In layman's term, Facebook acts like a private NSA; however, instead of using the digital information it collects about you to protect against terrorist attacks, Facebook uses the data you post and gleaned from your digital activity (posts, messages, and now websites visited, etc...) to make money. The information Facebook collects about you may also assist foreign hostile governments who legally or illegally acquire access to Facebook's systems.
About a year ago, Advertising Age reported that Facebook inked agreements with multiple data brokers to mine the personal digital information of users. These agreements convinced me that posting personal information on Facebook may contribute to consumer discrimination. The World Privacy Forum and The White House published recent reports that discussed how some populations may be vulnerable to discriminatory practices based upon large amounts of personal information being bought and sold by data brokers and data sources such as Facebook.
I don't advise anyone who values their privacy to post personal information to Facebook because it has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting user privacy. For example, in 2012 Facebook settled charges with the FTC that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.
The bottom line is that if you value your privacy be careful what and where you post online.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
The term "personalized ads" means behavioral advertising. In layman's term, Facebook acts like a private NSA; however, instead of using the digital information it collects about you to protect against terrorist attacks, Facebook uses the data you post and gleaned from your digital activity (posts, messages, and now websites visited, etc...) to make money. The information Facebook collects about you may also assist foreign hostile governments who legally or illegally acquire access to Facebook's systems.
About a year ago, Advertising Age reported that Facebook inked agreements with multiple data brokers to mine the personal digital information of users. These agreements convinced me that posting personal information on Facebook may contribute to consumer discrimination. The World Privacy Forum and The White House published recent reports that discussed how some populations may be vulnerable to discriminatory practices based upon large amounts of personal information being bought and sold by data brokers and data sources such as Facebook.
I don't advise anyone who values their privacy to post personal information to Facebook because it has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting user privacy. For example, in 2012 Facebook settled charges with the FTC that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.
The bottom line is that if you value your privacy be careful what and where you post online.
Copyright 2014 by Shear Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)