While the Occupy Wall Street protests have cooled down the past several months, the legal issues involved with them have heated up. According to the Wall Street Journal, a Manhattan judge recently ruled that Twitter has to turn over several months of an Occupy Wall Street protester’s tweets. The tweets may be utilized against the protestor at trial.
In April, the judge in the Occupy Wall Street protestor's case ruled that the protestor does not have the right to quash a subpoena for public tweets. At that time, I stated that, "I generally agree with the main point of this decision (that the protestor doesn't have the right to quash the subpoena) that public Tweets are fair game,"
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.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Penn State Sandusky emails prove NCAA schools should not social media monitor their student-athletes
With access comes responsibility. For more than a year, I have been stating that NCAA schools do not have a duty to social media monitor their student-athletes' password protected social media/digital content. Earlier this year, the NCAA stated loud and clear that its member schools do not have a blanket duty to monitor their student-athletes' public social networking accounts in the University of North Carolina Public Infractions Report.
The latest twist in the Penn State Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal proves once again that NCAA schools must be careful when drafting their student-athlete social media policies. According to a new CNN report, it appears that Penn State's Athletic Director Tim Curley, Vice President Gary Schultz, and President Graham Spanier discussed via email how to handle their knowledge that Jerry Sandusky may have sexually abused a child on Penn State's campus. The CNN report appears to indicate that according to emails it has obtained, Coach Joe Paterno was not in favor of reporting the information about an alleged sexual assault by Sandusky to the police.
According to the e-mails obtained by CNN, Spanier emailed Curley on February 27, 2001 and stated, "The only downside for us if the message isn't heard and acted upon, and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it". If this email is authenticated, it clearly demonstrates that with access/knowledge comes responsibility. Spanier appears to admit in the email that Penn State may have potential legal liability for intentionally not reporting Sandusky to the police.
These e-mails CNN allegedly obtained were written in 2001. Digital evidence from eleven years ago may be the smoking gun that demonstrates that Penn State knew about Sandusky but intentionally did nothing to stop Sandusky because it chose to protect its reputation instead of children who were preyed upon by Sandusky. This digital evidence appears to be extremely damaging to Penn State and may help plaintiff's lawyers successfully argue that Penn State should pay tens of millions of dollars for intentionally covering up the Sandusky matter. Therefore, why would any university want to create more opportunities for lawsuits by monitoring and archiving the digital content of their student-athletes or employees?
Unfortunately, some schools are listening to companies with names like UDiligence or Varsity Monitor. According to Deadspin.com, Varsity Monitor has multiple credibility issues and both Varsity Monitor and UDiligence appeared to lack any connection to college athletics or social media before their formation. What if a school finds out or has a strong reason to believe that their football superstar who is a leading candidate for the Heisman Trophy is engaging in illegal activity because of social media monitoring? What if the illegal activity harms a third party and the school did nothing to stop their star athlete because the school wanted the prestige of a Heisman Trophy winner or a national championship? The legal liability of the school may be tremendous.
The bottom line is that NCAA schools must create sensible social media policies that do not put them in a position that may create tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
The latest twist in the Penn State Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal proves once again that NCAA schools must be careful when drafting their student-athlete social media policies. According to a new CNN report, it appears that Penn State's Athletic Director Tim Curley, Vice President Gary Schultz, and President Graham Spanier discussed via email how to handle their knowledge that Jerry Sandusky may have sexually abused a child on Penn State's campus. The CNN report appears to indicate that according to emails it has obtained, Coach Joe Paterno was not in favor of reporting the information about an alleged sexual assault by Sandusky to the police.
According to the e-mails obtained by CNN, Spanier emailed Curley on February 27, 2001 and stated, "The only downside for us if the message isn't heard and acted upon, and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it". If this email is authenticated, it clearly demonstrates that with access/knowledge comes responsibility. Spanier appears to admit in the email that Penn State may have potential legal liability for intentionally not reporting Sandusky to the police.
These e-mails CNN allegedly obtained were written in 2001. Digital evidence from eleven years ago may be the smoking gun that demonstrates that Penn State knew about Sandusky but intentionally did nothing to stop Sandusky because it chose to protect its reputation instead of children who were preyed upon by Sandusky. This digital evidence appears to be extremely damaging to Penn State and may help plaintiff's lawyers successfully argue that Penn State should pay tens of millions of dollars for intentionally covering up the Sandusky matter. Therefore, why would any university want to create more opportunities for lawsuits by monitoring and archiving the digital content of their student-athletes or employees?
Unfortunately, some schools are listening to companies with names like UDiligence or Varsity Monitor. According to Deadspin.com, Varsity Monitor has multiple credibility issues and both Varsity Monitor and UDiligence appeared to lack any connection to college athletics or social media before their formation. What if a school finds out or has a strong reason to believe that their football superstar who is a leading candidate for the Heisman Trophy is engaging in illegal activity because of social media monitoring? What if the illegal activity harms a third party and the school did nothing to stop their star athlete because the school wanted the prestige of a Heisman Trophy winner or a national championship? The legal liability of the school may be tremendous.
The bottom line is that NCAA schools must create sensible social media policies that do not put them in a position that may create tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Penn State Sandusky guilty verdict proves NCAA schools should not hire social media monitoring companies to spy on their student-athletes or employees
The Penn State sex scandal is the worst scandal that any NCAA athletic department has ever encountered. Late last night, a jury found Jerry Sandusky, the former defensive coordinator of Penn State's football team guilty of 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse.
Jerry Sandusky is by far the worst monster to have ever coached at an NCAA school. My heart goes out to all of Sandusky's victims. According to published media reports, it appears that Penn State may have known that Sandusky was a sexual predator since at least 1998 when he was initially investigated by Penn State Police. Unfortunately, at that time nothing was done to stop this predator from having access to Penn State facilities with young boys.
Since at least 2002, the Penn State athletic department knew about allegations that Sandusky may have raped a young boy at its athletic facilities but did nothing to report him to law enforcement or to stop him from having access to its facilities. Since it appears that the athletic department knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual abuse crimes on its campus it may have significant civil legal liability. Administrators who lied about their knowledge of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities when questioned by police may also have criminal legal liability. In addition to potentially having criminal legal liability for lying about their knowledge of Sandusky's then alleged criminal activities, Penn State and its employees may also have significant civil liability for Sandusky's on and off-campus activities since it appears that Penn State knew that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual crimes and did nothing to stop him.
If Penn State wasn't informed about Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse of young boys it would be very difficult to prove that Penn State and/or any of its employees should be held liable for not stopping these terrible activities. However, since it appears that Penn State coaches, athletic department members, and members of the university administration knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing major crimes on and off campus Penn State and some current and/or former employees may have significant legal liability.
The Virgina Tech case should have been a wake up call that NCAA schools should not require their student-athletes or employees to provide access to their password protected digital content and/or to turn over their social media usernames. Next, the lawsuit by the family of a University of Virginia lacrosse player who was murdered by another student-athlete should have been another wake up call that athletic departments must stop these practices. Now, the Penn State guilty verdict appears to prove that if a university and/or its employees want to avoid legal liability for the digital content of their student-athletes or employees they must not require students or employees to provide access to their password protected personal digital content.
On November 15, 2011, I stated, if Penn State was aware of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities and failed to stop him the school may have major legal liability issues to defend against. Since it appears that Penn State knew about Sandusky's criminal behavior the economic cost of this matter to Penn State may be north of $100 million dollars due to court costs, litigation expenses, attorney fees, investigation costs, judgements, settlements, reputation costs, etc... It is premature to determine how much of these costs the school's insurance companies will pay but there is already litigation regarding the matter.
The Penn State sex scandal once again proves that NCAA schools need to ensure that their social media policies do not create unintended legal liability. Compliance personnel, coaches, or university employees who require their student-athletes or employees to turn over their social media usernames, passwords, or to download social media monitoring software, or to use any other unethical or illegal method to obtain access to their students' or employees' personal password protected digital content may create millions of dollars of legal liability for their schools and/or themselves.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Jerry Sandusky is by far the worst monster to have ever coached at an NCAA school. My heart goes out to all of Sandusky's victims. According to published media reports, it appears that Penn State may have known that Sandusky was a sexual predator since at least 1998 when he was initially investigated by Penn State Police. Unfortunately, at that time nothing was done to stop this predator from having access to Penn State facilities with young boys.
Since at least 2002, the Penn State athletic department knew about allegations that Sandusky may have raped a young boy at its athletic facilities but did nothing to report him to law enforcement or to stop him from having access to its facilities. Since it appears that the athletic department knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual abuse crimes on its campus it may have significant civil legal liability. Administrators who lied about their knowledge of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities when questioned by police may also have criminal legal liability. In addition to potentially having criminal legal liability for lying about their knowledge of Sandusky's then alleged criminal activities, Penn State and its employees may also have significant civil liability for Sandusky's on and off-campus activities since it appears that Penn State knew that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual crimes and did nothing to stop him.
If Penn State wasn't informed about Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse of young boys it would be very difficult to prove that Penn State and/or any of its employees should be held liable for not stopping these terrible activities. However, since it appears that Penn State coaches, athletic department members, and members of the university administration knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing major crimes on and off campus Penn State and some current and/or former employees may have significant legal liability.
The Virgina Tech case should have been a wake up call that NCAA schools should not require their student-athletes or employees to provide access to their password protected digital content and/or to turn over their social media usernames. Next, the lawsuit by the family of a University of Virginia lacrosse player who was murdered by another student-athlete should have been another wake up call that athletic departments must stop these practices. Now, the Penn State guilty verdict appears to prove that if a university and/or its employees want to avoid legal liability for the digital content of their student-athletes or employees they must not require students or employees to provide access to their password protected personal digital content.
On November 15, 2011, I stated, if Penn State was aware of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities and failed to stop him the school may have major legal liability issues to defend against. Since it appears that Penn State knew about Sandusky's criminal behavior the economic cost of this matter to Penn State may be north of $100 million dollars due to court costs, litigation expenses, attorney fees, investigation costs, judgements, settlements, reputation costs, etc... It is premature to determine how much of these costs the school's insurance companies will pay but there is already litigation regarding the matter.
The Penn State sex scandal once again proves that NCAA schools need to ensure that their social media policies do not create unintended legal liability. Compliance personnel, coaches, or university employees who require their student-athletes or employees to turn over their social media usernames, passwords, or to download social media monitoring software, or to use any other unethical or illegal method to obtain access to their students' or employees' personal password protected digital content may create millions of dollars of legal liability for their schools and/or themselves.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Maryland's Social Media Judicial Ethics Opinion
Since 2010, Maryland has taken the lead in social media law and compliance. In 2010, Maryland became the first state to draft (Full Disclosure: I worked with the Maryland Board of Elections to draft the regulations) social media election regulations. These regulations treat state office digital campaign materials in the same manner as traditional campaign materials and do not put any extra burdens on candidates and their campaigns.
In 2011, the judiciary flexed its social media wings in Griffin v. State of Maryland, when it stated that social media evidence must be properly authenticated when introduced during trial. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to create social media privacy legislation that protects both employers and employees (Full Disclosure: I worked with multiple state lawmakers to pass this legislation). This legislation was groundbreaking and has been used as a template by at least 15 other states and multiple members of Congress.
On June 12, 2012, the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee published an opinion providing guidance regarding the judiciary's use of social media. The main point of the decision is that, "a judge must recognize the use of social media networking sites may implicate several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and, therefore, proceed cautiously."
The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's opinion that prohibited judges from adding lawyers who may appear before them as "Facebook Friends" demonstrated a lack of understanding of social media. If judges can be friends in the real world and join the same social clubs as lawyers who appear before them they should be able to be Facebook Friends. California, New York, Kentucky, Ohio and South Carolina have taken a different position than Florida and their rules appear to generally demonstrate a better understanding of how online relationships are analogous to real world relationships.
The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee appears to have taken a position that generally follows California, New York, Kentucky, Ohio, and South Carolina. The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee stated "the mere fact of a social connection does not create a conflict" while referring to online social media connections. The bottom line is that Maryland once again has demonstrated an understanding of how social media intersects with the law.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In 2011, the judiciary flexed its social media wings in Griffin v. State of Maryland, when it stated that social media evidence must be properly authenticated when introduced during trial. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to create social media privacy legislation that protects both employers and employees (Full Disclosure: I worked with multiple state lawmakers to pass this legislation). This legislation was groundbreaking and has been used as a template by at least 15 other states and multiple members of Congress.
On June 12, 2012, the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee published an opinion providing guidance regarding the judiciary's use of social media. The main point of the decision is that, "a judge must recognize the use of social media networking sites may implicate several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and, therefore, proceed cautiously."
The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's opinion that prohibited judges from adding lawyers who may appear before them as "Facebook Friends" demonstrated a lack of understanding of social media. If judges can be friends in the real world and join the same social clubs as lawyers who appear before them they should be able to be Facebook Friends. California, New York, Kentucky, Ohio and South Carolina have taken a different position than Florida and their rules appear to generally demonstrate a better understanding of how online relationships are analogous to real world relationships.
The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee appears to have taken a position that generally follows California, New York, Kentucky, Ohio, and South Carolina. The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee stated "the mere fact of a social connection does not create a conflict" while referring to online social media connections. The bottom line is that Maryland once again has demonstrated an understanding of how social media intersects with the law.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, June 15, 2012
NCAA's New Social Media Recruiting Policy
The NCAA has updated its social media recruiting policy. The policy deregulates the number of texts, calls, and other forms of digital communication that coaches may have with potential recruits after they finish their sophomore year in high school.
While the previous policy was instituted with good intentions, it was very difficult to enforce and not flexible enough to adapt to the changing ways we communicate and interact. Unfortunately, there are some self-anointed sports social media consulstants who may try to convince schools that they understand social media, compliance, and the law and that schools should hire them to advise them on the NCAA's new policy. As I have written before, schools must perform due diligence on hiring companies who have incorrectly predicted future NCAA social media policy changes because some of these companies have been caught intentionally misrepresenting their credentials and lying to NCAA schools in order to obtain their business.
While coaches may now have the opportunity to send an unlimited number of digital messages to recruits, it would be wise not to over message and aggravate a high school student and/or his family. While social media and other forms of technology may help communicate with recruits, meeting a prospective future student-athlete face to face, shaking his hand, looking him in the eyes, and treating him with respect may still be the most productive way to determine if that person is a good fit for your program.
The bottom line is that schools should tread carefully in the social media space to avoid potential legal liability.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
While the previous policy was instituted with good intentions, it was very difficult to enforce and not flexible enough to adapt to the changing ways we communicate and interact. Unfortunately, there are some self-anointed sports social media consulstants who may try to convince schools that they understand social media, compliance, and the law and that schools should hire them to advise them on the NCAA's new policy. As I have written before, schools must perform due diligence on hiring companies who have incorrectly predicted future NCAA social media policy changes because some of these companies have been caught intentionally misrepresenting their credentials and lying to NCAA schools in order to obtain their business.
While coaches may now have the opportunity to send an unlimited number of digital messages to recruits, it would be wise not to over message and aggravate a high school student and/or his family. While social media and other forms of technology may help communicate with recruits, meeting a prospective future student-athlete face to face, shaking his hand, looking him in the eyes, and treating him with respect may still be the most productive way to determine if that person is a good fit for your program.
The bottom line is that schools should tread carefully in the social media space to avoid potential legal liability.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Did Facebook mislead investors regarding its user statistics in its S-1 Registration Statement?
Does Facebook have 900 million + users as its S-1 Registration Statement states as of March 31, 2012? Or, does Facebook have 900 million + monthly open accounts? Whether Facebook has 900 million + users or 526 million users (daily users as of March 31, 2012 as reported in the S-1), these are still massive numbers that have tremendous monetization opportunities.
Investors may want a more accurate answer regarding Facebook's number of users in light of police assertions that alleged Canadian killer Luke Magnotta had 70 different Facebook accounts under different names. Do most people have multiple Facebook accounts? Was Luke Magnotta's 70 Facebook accounts an anomaly among Facebook's users or do a significant number of Facebook's users have multiple accounts?
I don't know how many users vs. how many open accounts Facebook has and it appears that Facebook may not be able to accurately measure this distinction on its platform. Facebook estimates “false or duplicate accounts may have represented approximately 5-6%” of its monthly active users as of the end of 2011. Is this figure correct? Instead of stating in its S-1 that it has 900 million + monthly active users it may have been more accurate for Facebook to state that it has 900 million + monthly open accounts since it appears easy for anyone to have multiple accounts.
I don't want to speculate on whether Facebook made any material misrepresentations in its S-1 Registration Statement regarding its user statistics. Should Facebook along with other digital platforms focus on the number of monthly open accounts (MOA's) instead of the number of monthly active users (MAU's) since Luke Magnotta has demonstrated how easy it is to open multiple Facebook accounts? If an alleged killer has 70+ Facebook accounts how many accounts does the average Facebook user have? Is a more accurate definition of actively engaged unique digital platform users needed?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Investors may want a more accurate answer regarding Facebook's number of users in light of police assertions that alleged Canadian killer Luke Magnotta had 70 different Facebook accounts under different names. Do most people have multiple Facebook accounts? Was Luke Magnotta's 70 Facebook accounts an anomaly among Facebook's users or do a significant number of Facebook's users have multiple accounts?
I don't know how many users vs. how many open accounts Facebook has and it appears that Facebook may not be able to accurately measure this distinction on its platform. Facebook estimates “false or duplicate accounts may have represented approximately 5-6%” of its monthly active users as of the end of 2011. Is this figure correct? Instead of stating in its S-1 that it has 900 million + monthly active users it may have been more accurate for Facebook to state that it has 900 million + monthly open accounts since it appears easy for anyone to have multiple accounts.
I don't want to speculate on whether Facebook made any material misrepresentations in its S-1 Registration Statement regarding its user statistics. Should Facebook along with other digital platforms focus on the number of monthly open accounts (MOA's) instead of the number of monthly active users (MAU's) since Luke Magnotta has demonstrated how easy it is to open multiple Facebook accounts? If an alleged killer has 70+ Facebook accounts how many accounts does the average Facebook user have? Is a more accurate definition of actively engaged unique digital platform users needed?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Baltimore Sun editorial about Morgan State student's alleged cannabalism demonstrates it does not understand social media public policy
The Baltimore Sun was the paper I grew up reading and it is the source I utilize to see what is going on in my hometown. The recent allegations that Morgan State student Alexander Kinyua killed and ate pieces of his roommate in his off-campus apartment has made headlines all over the world.
This incident is a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to Mr. Kinyua's victims and their families. Unfortunately, the Baltimore Sun editorial page has demonstrated that it does not understand social media public policy when it wrote about this incident on June 5, 2012. It asked the question, "Was anyone at the university looking at Mr. Kinyua's Facebook page" and appeared to infer that the university may have a duty to review their students' social media accounts.
As long as a school does not require its students to Facebook Friend teachers and/or university officials and/or agents of the school, and/or require students to download social media monitoring software onto their personal accounts/electronic devices, schools do not have a duty to monitor their students' social media accounts. In general, schools do not have a duty to monitor their students off campus in the real world so schools should not create a duty to monitor their students off campus in the digital world.
Does the Baltimore Sun advocate our schools requiring students to register their usernames with their academic institutions? China requires their social media users to register their usernames through their microblog identification program so the government can track what everyone is saying and doing online. While that policy may work in China, we have a Constitution and a long history of protecting anonymous free speech.
With access comes responsibility. If our public schools become the social media police, plaintiffs may be able to successfully argue that schools have a duty to social media monitor their students' personal digital content. Therefore, before the Baltimore Sun makes any future comments relating to social media public policy it should be well versed in the ramifications of what it may be advocating.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
This incident is a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to Mr. Kinyua's victims and their families. Unfortunately, the Baltimore Sun editorial page has demonstrated that it does not understand social media public policy when it wrote about this incident on June 5, 2012. It asked the question, "Was anyone at the university looking at Mr. Kinyua's Facebook page" and appeared to infer that the university may have a duty to review their students' social media accounts.
As long as a school does not require its students to Facebook Friend teachers and/or university officials and/or agents of the school, and/or require students to download social media monitoring software onto their personal accounts/electronic devices, schools do not have a duty to monitor their students' social media accounts. In general, schools do not have a duty to monitor their students off campus in the real world so schools should not create a duty to monitor their students off campus in the digital world.
Does the Baltimore Sun advocate our schools requiring students to register their usernames with their academic institutions? China requires their social media users to register their usernames through their microblog identification program so the government can track what everyone is saying and doing online. While that policy may work in China, we have a Constitution and a long history of protecting anonymous free speech.
With access comes responsibility. If our public schools become the social media police, plaintiffs may be able to successfully argue that schools have a duty to social media monitor their students' personal digital content. Therefore, before the Baltimore Sun makes any future comments relating to social media public policy it should be well versed in the ramifications of what it may be advocating.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Are UDiligence and Varsity Monitor advising NCAA schools to violate the Stored Communications Act?
Over the past couple of years, companies with names like UDiligence and Varsity Monitor have been created to monitor the digital activity of student-athletes. At first glance it may seem like a good idea to require students to provide access to password protected social media content. However, once you understand what this means from a legal and financial perspective you may realize that this is a Pandora's Box that should not be opened.
UDiligence and Varsity Monitor appear to prey on the fears of college athletic departments even though the NCAA recently ruled that schools do not have a duty to monitor password protected social media content. Instead of helping NCAA athletic departments, these services may be exacerbating the situation because it appears they may be encouraging colleges to create new legal duties and violate the constitutional rights of their students along with multiple federal and state laws.
Within the past couple of weeks, both UDiligence and Varsity Monitor have taken down their client lists from their websites. Have the schools pressured them to do so? Or, did both of these companies take down their client lists because the media has started to ask in-depth questions about their services?
Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, 2009 WL 3128420 (D.N.J. 2009), is a case that appears analogous to the situation where schools are "requesting" that their student-athletes provide access to their password protected digital/social media accounts. In Pietrylo, an employee "did not feel free" to deny her boss access to a password protected MySpace account. The jury found that the employer violated the Stored Communications Act and the case was upheld on appeal. Therefore, since students "may not feel free" to deny their athletic departments and/or third parties access to their password protected social media accounts these services may be advising schools to violate the Stored Communications Act.
Since requesting employees to provide access to their password protected social media accounts has been found to violate the Stored Communications Act, it may also violate the Stored Communications Act for NCAA schools to "request" access to their students' password protected social media accounts. Requiring public school students to download applications and/or Facebook Friend university employees or agents may also violate the 1st and 4th Amendments along with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and multiple other federal and state laws.
The bottom line is that schools that engage UDiligence or Varsity Monitor may be paying $10,000 plus dollars per year for a service that may be creating more problems than it solves.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
UDiligence and Varsity Monitor appear to prey on the fears of college athletic departments even though the NCAA recently ruled that schools do not have a duty to monitor password protected social media content. Instead of helping NCAA athletic departments, these services may be exacerbating the situation because it appears they may be encouraging colleges to create new legal duties and violate the constitutional rights of their students along with multiple federal and state laws.
Within the past couple of weeks, both UDiligence and Varsity Monitor have taken down their client lists from their websites. Have the schools pressured them to do so? Or, did both of these companies take down their client lists because the media has started to ask in-depth questions about their services?
Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, 2009 WL 3128420 (D.N.J. 2009), is a case that appears analogous to the situation where schools are "requesting" that their student-athletes provide access to their password protected digital/social media accounts. In Pietrylo, an employee "did not feel free" to deny her boss access to a password protected MySpace account. The jury found that the employer violated the Stored Communications Act and the case was upheld on appeal. Therefore, since students "may not feel free" to deny their athletic departments and/or third parties access to their password protected social media accounts these services may be advising schools to violate the Stored Communications Act.
Since requesting employees to provide access to their password protected social media accounts has been found to violate the Stored Communications Act, it may also violate the Stored Communications Act for NCAA schools to "request" access to their students' password protected social media accounts. Requiring public school students to download applications and/or Facebook Friend university employees or agents may also violate the 1st and 4th Amendments along with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and multiple other federal and state laws.
The bottom line is that schools that engage UDiligence or Varsity Monitor may be paying $10,000 plus dollars per year for a service that may be creating more problems than it solves.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
SNOPA (HR 5050) May Protect Insurance Companies From Schools and Businesses That Demand Access To Personal Password Protected Social Media Accounts
I have written how the Social Networking Online Protection Act (HR 5050) may benefit employees, job applicants, employers, students, student applicants, and schools. Now, I am going to explain how HR 5050 may benefit insurance companies.
Does the insurance industry realize that multiple schools are creating a massive database of their students' password protected social media content and activities? With access to all of this data these schools may become responsible for everything their students do online and everything that is referenced online and/or inferred online that may occur in the real world.
The Universities of North Carolina, Texas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma may not only be violating the Stored Communications Act with their student-athlete social media policies but also may be creating tremendous insurability problems for their academic institutions.
Each of the above mentioned schools have engaged a company called Varsity Monitor. In order for students to keep their scholarships and play intercollegiate sports at these public institutions, they must Facebook Friend Varsity Monitor and provide unfettered access to their password protected social media/digital content. Varsity Monitor downloads the students' social media content and creates detailed reports about all of the students' digital activities. Requiring a student to provide access to their password protected social media/digital content may violate FERPA and/or other federal and/or state laws
Varsity Monitor along with above schools are compiling vast amounts of personal data on thousands of students. What happens when there is a data breach? In Varsity Monitor's agreements and policies it clearly states that by using their service they are indemnified against any legal issues that may arise. Therefore, when a data breach occurs who will be left paying for it? The schools' insurance companies.
According to the latest Ponemon Data Breach Study, the average cost of a data breach is $194 per record and the overall average organizational cost is $5.5 million dollars. These figures appear to be focused on what I would call traditional data breach issues (compromised social security numbers, dates of births, addresses, etc...) and not personal social media data breach issues (which may include traditional issues plus a list of friends, professional contacts, personal photographs, confidential interactions, potential blackmail information, etc...). Furthermore, according to Ponemon the biggest threat to data breach are those who have access to the data. Therefore, when a student-athlete becomes famous and his social media content contains embarrassing information will Varsity Monitor and/or school employees who have access to the data leak the password protected personal content for personal gain?
Are schools prepared for the increase in legal discovery requests that will accompany all of the data they have accumulated on their students? Are schools telling their insurance companies that they are accumulating all of this unneeded personal data on their students? Do the schools that engage Varsity Monitor or similar service providers such as UDiligence, or Centrix Social know that a data breach at Ohio State a couple years ago may have cost the University $4 million dollars to resolve. These costs included: investigative consulting, notification of the breach, and a calling center to answer questions or concerns.
Ohio State's insurance company may have covered the entire cost of this incident. However, will the insurance industry be willing to cover an incident when a school and/or Varsity Monitor mishandles personal password protected social media content and/or when a school is sued for negligent social media monitoring? This type of lawsuit may contain some of the same arguments as the recent $30 million dollar lawsuit against UVA by the family of Yardley Love. However, because of digital evidence a jury in a negligent social media monitoring lawsuit may award $100 million dollars plus to a plaintiff. If you don't think this could happen you may want to ask Dharun Rhavi's lawyer about the power of social media evidence.
If the insurance industry wants to be protected from having to pay out claims against schools and/or businesses who are requiring their students and/or employees to provide access to their password protected digital content they will support the Social Networking Online Protection Act (HR 5050).
(Full Disclosure: I am working pro bono with Rep. Engel's office on the Social Networking Online Protection Act .)
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Does the insurance industry realize that multiple schools are creating a massive database of their students' password protected social media content and activities? With access to all of this data these schools may become responsible for everything their students do online and everything that is referenced online and/or inferred online that may occur in the real world.
The Universities of North Carolina, Texas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma may not only be violating the Stored Communications Act with their student-athlete social media policies but also may be creating tremendous insurability problems for their academic institutions.
Each of the above mentioned schools have engaged a company called Varsity Monitor. In order for students to keep their scholarships and play intercollegiate sports at these public institutions, they must Facebook Friend Varsity Monitor and provide unfettered access to their password protected social media/digital content. Varsity Monitor downloads the students' social media content and creates detailed reports about all of the students' digital activities. Requiring a student to provide access to their password protected social media/digital content may violate FERPA and/or other federal and/or state laws
Varsity Monitor along with above schools are compiling vast amounts of personal data on thousands of students. What happens when there is a data breach? In Varsity Monitor's agreements and policies it clearly states that by using their service they are indemnified against any legal issues that may arise. Therefore, when a data breach occurs who will be left paying for it? The schools' insurance companies.
According to the latest Ponemon Data Breach Study, the average cost of a data breach is $194 per record and the overall average organizational cost is $5.5 million dollars. These figures appear to be focused on what I would call traditional data breach issues (compromised social security numbers, dates of births, addresses, etc...) and not personal social media data breach issues (which may include traditional issues plus a list of friends, professional contacts, personal photographs, confidential interactions, potential blackmail information, etc...). Furthermore, according to Ponemon the biggest threat to data breach are those who have access to the data. Therefore, when a student-athlete becomes famous and his social media content contains embarrassing information will Varsity Monitor and/or school employees who have access to the data leak the password protected personal content for personal gain?
Are schools prepared for the increase in legal discovery requests that will accompany all of the data they have accumulated on their students? Are schools telling their insurance companies that they are accumulating all of this unneeded personal data on their students? Do the schools that engage Varsity Monitor or similar service providers such as UDiligence, or Centrix Social know that a data breach at Ohio State a couple years ago may have cost the University $4 million dollars to resolve. These costs included: investigative consulting, notification of the breach, and a calling center to answer questions or concerns.
Ohio State's insurance company may have covered the entire cost of this incident. However, will the insurance industry be willing to cover an incident when a school and/or Varsity Monitor mishandles personal password protected social media content and/or when a school is sued for negligent social media monitoring? This type of lawsuit may contain some of the same arguments as the recent $30 million dollar lawsuit against UVA by the family of Yardley Love. However, because of digital evidence a jury in a negligent social media monitoring lawsuit may award $100 million dollars plus to a plaintiff. If you don't think this could happen you may want to ask Dharun Rhavi's lawyer about the power of social media evidence.
If the insurance industry wants to be protected from having to pay out claims against schools and/or businesses who are requiring their students and/or employees to provide access to their password protected digital content they will support the Social Networking Online Protection Act (HR 5050).
(Full Disclosure: I am working pro bono with Rep. Engel's office on the Social Networking Online Protection Act .)
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
NCAA Schools That Require Their Students To Facebook Friend Them May Be Violating the Stored Communications Act
Any school or university that requires its students to Facebook Friend a coach, a school administrator, or a third party in order for their students to keep their scholarships, participate in intercollegiate athletics, etc... may be violating the Stored Communications Act (SCA).
Under the Stored Communications Act, forced Facebook Friending may be against the law. Since the SCA was enacted in 1986, before the existence of modern social media, the Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA) is needed to catch up with modern technology. Any school or university employee who believes that it is legally prudent to require their students to provide them access to their personal password protected digital content without a court order may want to learn more about the lawsuit against the University of Virginia (UVA) by the family of Yardley Love.
Yardley Love was a student-athlete at UVA who was murdered by fellow UVA student-athlete George Huguely. According to ABC News, Yardley Love's family is suing the coaches of the men's lacrosse team along with the athletic director because they allegedly knew or should have known that George Huguely was a danger to others. If UVA was social media monitoring George Huguely and missed or misinterpreted a Tweet, or a Facebook post, or other online content that may have indicated he may be a danger to others this $30 million dollar lawsuit against UVA may have been a $100 million dollar plus lawsuit.
With access comes responsibility. Schools and/or universities that require their students to Facebook Friend coaches, school employees, third parties, etc... and/or require students to install social media monitoring software onto their personal electronic devices may become liable for their students' online content and conduct along with offline conduct that was referred to and/or inferred by a Tweet, Facebook post, blog comment, etc.... Does a school or university want to be sued for negligent social media monitoring or failure to social media monitor?
If a school or university legal department wants to protect itself against these types of social media lawsuits they will enthusiastically support the Social Networking Online Protection Act (HR 5050) because it may provide them a legal liability shield against these claims. If a school or university wants to become the social media police and become liable for their students' online behavior and offline behavior that may have been referred to and/or inferred online that is their prerogative. If so, they may want to obtain cyber liability insurance that contains at least $100 million dollars in per incident coverage to protect against social media lawsuits.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Maryland's Facebook Username and Password Law is a Win For Employers, Employees, and Job Applicants
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed into law today legislation that makes Maryland the first state to ban employers from requiring employees or job applicants to provide access to their personal digital/social media accounts. While Maryland is the first state to enact this type of legislation, California along with other states and the federal government may soon follow Maryland's lead.
Senate Bill 433 is a huge win for the business community because it may provide Maryland businesses with a legal liability shield from plaintiffs who may allege that businesses have a legal duty to monitor their employees' password protected digital content. Unfortunately, some Maryland business groups have underestimated the tremendous win that SB 433 is for the business community. This groundbreaking law may collectively save Maryland businesses millions of dollars a year in costs to monitor their employees' personal digital accounts. In addition, this law may save Maryland businesses millions of dollars per year on cyber liability insurance premiums that would accompany a duty to monitor employees in the digital/social media space.
With access comes responsibility. Since Maryland businesses will not have access to their employees' personal digital content they will not become responsible for their employees' personal social media behavior. Employers do not have a duty to monitor everything their employees do in the privacy of their real world homes so employers do not want to create a duty to monitor their employees in their digital homes.
Do businesses want to have access to content that may demonstrate that an employee is a member of a protected class? There already is a lawsuit alleging "Facebook Like Discrimination". In this lawsuit, a former federal employee alleges that he was discriminated against because his supervisor became aware that he "Facebook Liked" a page that may have indicated his sexual orientation. Therefore, this new law may save employers millions of dollars per year in legal fees and judgments that may accompany access to an employee's personal digital content.
This legislation is also a major victory for employees and job applicants. A Maryland employer may no longer ask employees or job applicants to provide access to their personal digital or social media accounts. For example, during a job interview an employer may not request an applicant log into their personal Facebook account or to "Facebook Friend" a manager. In addition, an employer may not require an employee provide access to their personal password protected digital accounts.
Job applicants and employees must understand that they should still be careful about the content they post online, utilize the proper privacy settings, and carefully screen who they "Friend" online. This is a watershed moment for both the business community and digital privacy. I hope that other states along with the federal government follow Maryland's lead to enact legislation that demonstrates an understanding of the legal and public policy implications of the Social Media Age.
(Full Disclosure: I was not paid for my work on this legislation. I worked on this legislation because I want to protect employers, employees, and job applicants from unforeseen legal issues that may arise due to a lack of understanding of the public policy and legal implications of social media usage. Therefore, I was in constant contact with Maryland Senator Ronald Young and Maryland Delegate Shawn Tarrant to work with them to create a common sense solution that protects the interests of employers, employees, and job applicants.)
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Senate Bill 433 is a huge win for the business community because it may provide Maryland businesses with a legal liability shield from plaintiffs who may allege that businesses have a legal duty to monitor their employees' password protected digital content. Unfortunately, some Maryland business groups have underestimated the tremendous win that SB 433 is for the business community. This groundbreaking law may collectively save Maryland businesses millions of dollars a year in costs to monitor their employees' personal digital accounts. In addition, this law may save Maryland businesses millions of dollars per year on cyber liability insurance premiums that would accompany a duty to monitor employees in the digital/social media space.
With access comes responsibility. Since Maryland businesses will not have access to their employees' personal digital content they will not become responsible for their employees' personal social media behavior. Employers do not have a duty to monitor everything their employees do in the privacy of their real world homes so employers do not want to create a duty to monitor their employees in their digital homes.
Do businesses want to have access to content that may demonstrate that an employee is a member of a protected class? There already is a lawsuit alleging "Facebook Like Discrimination". In this lawsuit, a former federal employee alleges that he was discriminated against because his supervisor became aware that he "Facebook Liked" a page that may have indicated his sexual orientation. Therefore, this new law may save employers millions of dollars per year in legal fees and judgments that may accompany access to an employee's personal digital content.
This legislation is also a major victory for employees and job applicants. A Maryland employer may no longer ask employees or job applicants to provide access to their personal digital or social media accounts. For example, during a job interview an employer may not request an applicant log into their personal Facebook account or to "Facebook Friend" a manager. In addition, an employer may not require an employee provide access to their personal password protected digital accounts.
Job applicants and employees must understand that they should still be careful about the content they post online, utilize the proper privacy settings, and carefully screen who they "Friend" online. This is a watershed moment for both the business community and digital privacy. I hope that other states along with the federal government follow Maryland's lead to enact legislation that demonstrates an understanding of the legal and public policy implications of the Social Media Age.
(Full Disclosure: I was not paid for my work on this legislation. I worked on this legislation because I want to protect employers, employees, and job applicants from unforeseen legal issues that may arise due to a lack of understanding of the public policy and legal implications of social media usage. Therefore, I was in constant contact with Maryland Senator Ronald Young and Maryland Delegate Shawn Tarrant to work with them to create a common sense solution that protects the interests of employers, employees, and job applicants.)
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 27, 2012
SNOPA: The Social Networking Online Protection Act
The Social Networking Online Protection Act was introduced today by Congressman Elliot Engel of New York. The bill would ban employers and schools from requiring access to password protected digital content. The bill is a win for businesses, schools, and privacy. The bill would protect businesses and schools from creating a legal duty to monitor password protected digital content. Therefore, the bill protects businesses, schools, and taxpayers. In addition, the bill is a win for employees, job applicants, students, and student applicants because it protects them from being required to provide access to their password protected digital content
During my conversation with Bob Sullivan of MSNBC I stated that SNOPA provides employers and schools a shield against legal liability so no one can claim that employers and schools have a legal duty to monitor password protected digital content. In addition, I mentioned that because the bill protects a wide range of interests, it has a better chance at success than previous efforts.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
(Full Dislcosure: I am working with Congressman Engel's office on this issue in a pro bono capacity. If you believe this is important legislation please contact Congress to voice your support)
During my conversation with Bob Sullivan of MSNBC I stated that SNOPA provides employers and schools a shield against legal liability so no one can claim that employers and schools have a legal duty to monitor password protected digital content. In addition, I mentioned that because the bill protects a wide range of interests, it has a better chance at success than previous efforts.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
(Full Dislcosure: I am working with Congressman Engel's office on this issue in a pro bono capacity. If you believe this is important legislation please contact Congress to voice your support)
Monday, April 23, 2012
Occupy Wall Street Public Tweets Subpoena Decision May Have A Troubling Analysis
A judge ruled earlier today that deleted public tweets may be used as evidence in an Occupy Wall Street protestor's trial. While I generally agree with the main point of this decision that public Tweets are fair game, some of the analysis behind the decision may be very troubling.
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. However, if one has a protected Twitter account where the owner of the account has the ability to choose who may have access to his Tweets and/or sends a Twitter Direct Message the user may have an expectation of privacy and then a warrant may be needed for the government to be able to access the Tweets and/or the Direct Messages.
One aspect of the decision I found to be very troubling was on page 4 where it states, "Twitter’s license to use the defendant’s Tweets means that the Tweets the defendant posted were not his." I believe that this analysis is incorrect and demonstrates that Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr. may not fully understand social media, digital technology, and public policy. In addition, on page 6 of the decision, it states, "While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet." If Judge Sciarrino's reasoning is extended to all online services that may mean that as a society we don't have an expectation of privacy for password protected digital content. If we don't have an expectation of privacy for our password protected digital content this may drastically harm the ability for technology companies to monetize cloud computing and other future electronic services because businesses and consumers may be hesitant to utilize these services if the government has the ability to access our password protected digital content without a warrant.
While we may not have an expectation of privacy for our public Tweets, some of the analysis for this decision is terribly flawed and demonstrates the need for our judiciary to become better educated about the issues inherent with social media and technology.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
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. However, if one has a protected Twitter account where the owner of the account has the ability to choose who may have access to his Tweets and/or sends a Twitter Direct Message the user may have an expectation of privacy and then a warrant may be needed for the government to be able to access the Tweets and/or the Direct Messages.
One aspect of the decision I found to be very troubling was on page 4 where it states, "Twitter’s license to use the defendant’s Tweets means that the Tweets the defendant posted were not his." I believe that this analysis is incorrect and demonstrates that Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr. may not fully understand social media, digital technology, and public policy. In addition, on page 6 of the decision, it states, "While the Fourth Amendment provides protection for our physical homes, we do not have a physical “home” on the Internet." If Judge Sciarrino's reasoning is extended to all online services that may mean that as a society we don't have an expectation of privacy for password protected digital content. If we don't have an expectation of privacy for our password protected digital content this may drastically harm the ability for technology companies to monetize cloud computing and other future electronic services because businesses and consumers may be hesitant to utilize these services if the government has the ability to access our password protected digital content without a warrant.
While we may not have an expectation of privacy for our public Tweets, some of the analysis for this decision is terribly flawed and demonstrates the need for our judiciary to become better educated about the issues inherent with social media and technology.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Maryland: The First State To Protect our Social Media Privacy and Security
Maryland has become the first state to protect the social media and electronic account privacy and security of its citizens. The legislation is a win for employers and employees. The Maryland legislature said loud and clear that in these difficult times businesses should not be required to spend tens of thousands of dollars per year to hire social media monitoring companies to review their employees' password protected digital content. In order to become enacted, SB 433 still needs to be signed by Governor Martin O'Malley. Once it is has been signed, the legislation will not go into effect until October 1, 2012. Therefore, until this legislation becomes law nothing has changed in the sate of Maryland.
This legislation may also shield companies in Maryland from lawsuits that allege that a company failed to properly monitor their employees' private electronic content and from negligent social media monitoring lawsuits. The potential savings to Maryland businesses per year is tens of millions of dollars. In general, Maryland employees will now be protected against being required to turn their password protected digital content in order to obtain or keep a job.
I personally reached out to Facebook about Maryland's legislation and asked them for their support. I want to publicly thank Facebook for their assistance. To Facebook's credit, they came out strongly against employers and schools demanding access to password protected digital content on March 23, 2012. I am hopeful that Facebook along with other Internet companies will strongly support federal legislation that would protect both employees and students from having their electronic account privacy and security compromised by those who don't understand social media, the law, or public policy.
For most jobs, employees should not be required to provide access to their password protected electronic content. In addition, students at public schools should never be required to provide access to their password protected electronic content to their schools and/or social media monitoring companies such as UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, or Centrix Social.
(Full Disclosure: I was not paid for my work on this legislation. There is a tremendous lack of understanding about the legal and public policy issues inherent in the Social Media Age and I want to protect employers, employees, job applicants, schools, students, student applicants, and taxpayers from unforeseen legal issues that may arise. Therefore, I was in constant contact with Maryland State Senator Ronald Young and Maryland State Delegate Shawn Tarrant to work with them to create a common sense solution to these problems.)
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
This legislation may also shield companies in Maryland from lawsuits that allege that a company failed to properly monitor their employees' private electronic content and from negligent social media monitoring lawsuits. The potential savings to Maryland businesses per year is tens of millions of dollars. In general, Maryland employees will now be protected against being required to turn their password protected digital content in order to obtain or keep a job.
I personally reached out to Facebook about Maryland's legislation and asked them for their support. I want to publicly thank Facebook for their assistance. To Facebook's credit, they came out strongly against employers and schools demanding access to password protected digital content on March 23, 2012. I am hopeful that Facebook along with other Internet companies will strongly support federal legislation that would protect both employees and students from having their electronic account privacy and security compromised by those who don't understand social media, the law, or public policy.
For most jobs, employees should not be required to provide access to their password protected electronic content. In addition, students at public schools should never be required to provide access to their password protected electronic content to their schools and/or social media monitoring companies such as UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, or Centrix Social.
On February 20, 2011, I publicly stated that this issue, "may one day be decided by the courts and/or state legislatures and/or Congress." I am proud to have successfully lobbied Maryland to pass this groundbreaking legislation. I have discussed these troubling issues with multiple state legislators across the country and federal officials. I am hopeful that more states and the federal government pass similar legislation. I urge everyone to lobby their representatives in their state legislatures and in Congress to pass bipartisan legislation that protects the personal electronic privacy and security rights of employees and students and provides the business community with bright lines rules that will protect them against social media lawsuits.
(Full Disclosure: I was not paid for my work on this legislation. There is a tremendous lack of understanding about the legal and public policy issues inherent in the Social Media Age and I want to protect employers, employees, job applicants, schools, students, student applicants, and taxpayers from unforeseen legal issues that may arise. Therefore, I was in constant contact with Maryland State Senator Ronald Young and Maryland State Delegate Shawn Tarrant to work with them to create a common sense solution to these problems.)
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Schools May Need a Search Warrant To Access Their Student-Athletes' Personal Password Protected Electronic Accounts
According to the Penn State Daily Collegian, Penn Sate Police seized illegal drugs and paraphernalia from the home of one of their football players. Police had entered the home of a current and former student-athlete to investigate a break-in. Upon realizing there may be illegal drugs, it appears the police obtained a search warrant.
Since in the real world a search warrant is generally required to obtain evidence in one's real home, a search warrant is also generally required in the digital world to search one's password protected digital home. In order for a public school to obtain access to the password protected personal social media and digital accounts (non-school issued) of their student-athletes they may need a court order.
A public school may not require a student to utilize the services of UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Centrix Social, or any other social media monitoring company in order to keep his or her scholarship and may not retaliate against a student for refusing to provide access absent a court order.
Therefore, if a student at a public school refuses to provide UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Centrix Social, other social media monitoring companies, or school employees their personal social media or personal digital account information and the school punishes the student in any manner for refusing to do so the student may have multiple causes of action against the school. The 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments along with the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, and multiple state laws may be implicated in social media monitoring.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Since in the real world a search warrant is generally required to obtain evidence in one's real home, a search warrant is also generally required in the digital world to search one's password protected digital home. In order for a public school to obtain access to the password protected personal social media and digital accounts (non-school issued) of their student-athletes they may need a court order.
A public school may not require a student to utilize the services of UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Centrix Social, or any other social media monitoring company in order to keep his or her scholarship and may not retaliate against a student for refusing to provide access absent a court order.
Therefore, if a student at a public school refuses to provide UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Centrix Social, other social media monitoring companies, or school employees their personal social media or personal digital account information and the school punishes the student in any manner for refusing to do so the student may have multiple causes of action against the school. The 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments along with the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, and multiple state laws may be implicated in social media monitoring.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)