Saudi Arabia Imprisons 7 For Facebook Protest Posts

According to NBC News, Saudi Arabia has sentenced seven people to jail for posting on Facebook messages encouraging anti-government protests.  The prison sentences ranged from five to ten years. The men involved were not charged with participating in the actual protests but with "inciting "protests, illegal gathering, and breaking allegiance with the king".

This is not the first time that a country has sent people to jail for protesting online.  Last year, Oman sentenced two people to jail for their alleged anti-government Facebook posts.  One of those sent to prison was accused of posting a poem on Facebook which allegedly criticized the ruler of Oman, Sultan Qaboos.

While social media may be utilized to express personal opinions for the entire world to see, it is imperative to be mindful of not only the law but also the political environment to ensure that the content uploaded does not lead to a prison sentence.

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

George Zimmerman Prosecution Asks For Instagram Photo Inquiry

According to CBS News, prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial have asked the court to open an inquiry into a photo that the daughter of defense attorney Don West posted on Instagram.  The Instagram photo shows West and his daughter holding up ice cream cones with the caption, "We beat stupidity celebration cones." along with the hashtags "#zimmerman, #defense, and #dadkilledit".

While the timing of the photo may have been in poor taste, it does not appear that there is a need to investigate the issues surrounding its posting.  Kids say and do things they regret regularly so this post should be a non-issue since it does not appear to affect the integrity of the court proceeding.  Is the prosecution making a bigger deal out of this matter because it believes the case is not going their way?

The prosecution's actions have made the story go viral which I believe was the exact opposite of their intent.  The bottom line is that the prosecution should focus on what is going on inside the court room and not what the teenage daughter of a defense attorney posts online.

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

EU Data Protection Authorities Lead The Fight To Protect Digital Privacy

The CNIL, France's independent administrative authority that ensures that data protection law is adhered to by companies doing business in France recently ordered Google to comply with the French Data Protection Act within three months or face sanctions for non-compliance. According to Reuters, the CNIL stated that Google has broken French law and that it has until the end of the three months to change its privacy policies or it may be fined up to 150,000 euros.  Reuters also reported that Spain's Data Protection Agency (AEPD) may fine Google between 40,000 and 300,000 euros for each of its five violations of the Spanish Data Protection Law.

The allegations that Google has violated data protection laws throughout Europe is extremely serious and unfortunately not surprising.  Google's January 24, 2012, announcement that as of March 1, 2012, it would change its web sites' privacy policies to enable it to combine all of the information that it collects about its users to enhance its data mining capabilities created so many questions about its legality that before it even went into effect, France's data protection authority, the CNIL, notified Google on February 27, 2012 that it would lead a coordinated European investigation into the matter. 

In October 2012, the European Union Data Protection Agency issued a report alleging that Google's new privacy policies failed to comply with its data protection laws.  This report was endorsed by privacy regulators in 27 EU member states along with Australia, Mexico, New Zealand and Canada.  Since this report was issued, the EU has provided Google the opportunity to either prove that its privacy policy change complies with EU data protection laws, revert to its old privacy policies, or propose another solution that would adhere to EU data protection laws. 

Unfortunately for Google's users, it has continued to claim that its March 1, 2012 privacy policy change does not violate EU data protection laws even though regulators across the continent have concluded otherwise.  Since Google announced that it would change its privacy policies, Internet users have begun to demand that legislators along with regulators better protect personal digital privacy.

Privacy legislation, regulation, and enforcement is on the rise.  For example, since May 2012, at least 36 states along with Congress have either introduced and/or enacted privacy laws that generally ban employers and/or schools from being able to require access to their employees' and/or students' personal digital data stored in the cloud.  Late last year, U.S. Senator David Rockefeller opened an investigation into the practices of nine data brokers which may have led the FTC to study this issue.  The recent NSA digital surveillance disclosures have proven that Internet users deeply care how their personal information is being utilized by the companies that are entrusted with their digital thoughts, correspondence, and information. 

With access comes responsibility.  Google has demonstrated time and time again that it and/or its employees may abuse its position as a gatekeeper of personal information.  For example, several years ago, PC Magazine reported that a Google engineer was fired for accessing the Gmail and Google Voice accounts of minors and taunting children with the personal information he found.  Last year, Google paid a record $22.5 million civil penalty to settle FTC charges that it misrepresented to users of Apple's Safari Internet browser that it would not place tracking “cookies” or serve targeted ads to those users, violating an earlier privacy settlement with the FTC.  Several months ago, Google was fined 145,000 euros in Germany for what Hamburg data regulator Johannes Caspar stated was "one of the biggest data protection rules violations known" when it collected the personal e-mails, passwords, and photos of Internet users during its Google Street View project.

Why isn't breaching data protection laws not considered as serious or troubling as breaking anti-trust laws?  Violating the privacy of a digital user, whether a minor child or an adult, creates significant personal safety issues.  For example, if an employee of a company that accumulates vast amounts of personal data about its account holders utilizes his position to harass and/or blackmail its users there are tremendous personal privacy, safety, and legal issues that need to be properly addressed. 

While anti-trust violations may be detrimental to individuals, businesses, and society; in general, the greatest harm that may occur is that someone may pay more for a good or service than they otherwise would have and/or potential competition may be stifled.  Therefore, since privacy violations may create greater personal safety and security issues and may do more harm to members of society than anti-trust violations, why isn't the punishment for privacy violations at least equal if not greater than the punishment for anti-trust violations?  Why are anti-trust violations generally punished much more harshly than privacy violations?     

Will EU regulators investigate whether Google's privacy policies affect how it presents its Internet search results?  What if Google's data mining capabilities that appear to have been greatly increased because of its privacy policy changes is a major factor in its alleged monopolistic behavior in the European Internet search market?  Have the potential interconnection of these issues been thoroughly investigated by European regulators? 

Data protection authorities across Europe appear ready, willing, and able to take action against Google in three months.  If Google hardens its position and continues to refuse to acknowledge that its privacy policy change puts the personal privacy of its users at risk and violates EU data protection laws, this stance may lead to not only sanctions against Google, but also to increased scrutiny of the privacy policies of other U.S. based companies.

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

$2 Million Lawsuit After a School Uses Student's Facebook Photo Without Permission

Public secondary and post-secondary schools around the country may be creating tremendous legal liability issues for taxpayers because of their lack of understanding regarding social media and the law. According to The Daily Mail, a college freshman at the University of Georgia is suing her former Georgia school district for $2 million dollars after it utilized a photograph that she posted on her personal Facebook account without her permission in a district seminar about the Internet.

The Director of Technology at the Fayette County Schools allegedly used a personal photo of a former student to discuss the issues inherent with social media.  It appears that before the seminar the former student's photo was not newsworthy or publicized other than being on Facebook.  Some questions that need to be answered may include:  How did the school district obtain the photograph?; Did the school district know who was in the photograph?;  Why didn't the school district obtain permission before utilizing the photograph?  

This litigation demonstrates the tremendous legal liability issues that secondary and post-secondary schools may encounter regarding the use of personal student photographs that appear on social media platforms.  There are a handful of consulting firms that are approaching schools that claim they can properly advise schools on how to "educate" and "monitor" students online. 

Unfortunately, many of these services utilize methods to "educate" and/or "track" students online that states around the country are banning.  In addition, some of these services are abusing their access to students' personal digital content.  For example, according to Time Magazine, a company called UDiligence was caught last year displaying the personal photographs of the students that it was monitoring to sell its services.

The bottom line is that secondary and post-secondary schools must better understand the legal ramifications of social and digital media content and platforms before they are sued.

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

Google Pledges To Eradicate Child Porn From Web

It was announced recently that Google is creating a global database to try to stop the proliferation of child pornography online.  According to The Telegraph, Google's "engineers are working on new technology which will, for the first time, allow Internet search engines and other web firms to swap information about images of children being raped and abused."

Google has been heavily criticized for not doing enough to stop child pornography from being easily available on its web sites.  According to The Guardian, last week UK Prime Minister David Cameron demanded Google do more to stop the spread of child porn online.  It was reported that  Google was one of the companies that was summoned to a summit to discuss these issues with Cameron's Culture Secretary Maria Miller and Tory MP Claire Perry.  

I wrote about Google's alleged inaction on this matter last week because this is a serious problem that Google should devote more resources towards resolving.  While I believe that Google's announcement that it is working on a new initiative to stop the spread of online images that show children being raped and abused is a step in the right direction, why did it take so much international pressure and negative media before Google decided to act?

Even though there is still plenty of debate regarding a company's legal duty to police the content uploaded or searchable on its web sites, Google may have a moral responsibility to protect our children.  It is imperative that Google does everything in its power to stop the spread of child pornography on its platforms.

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

IOC Releases the Sochi Olympics Social Media, Blogging, and Internet Guidelines For Participants

The IOC has just released its Social Media, Blogging, and Internet Guidelines for Participants and Other Accredited Persons at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Games.  The Guidelines apply to all accredited persons, including all athletes, coaches, officials, and personnel of National Olympic Committees and International Federations and members of media accredited to the Olympic Games.  The guidelines apply January 30th through February 26th.

Under the Guidelines, "video or audio content taken from within Olympic venues (including from within the Olympic Villages or the Olympic Park) must only be for personal use and must not be uploaded or shared on any website, blog, social media page, public photo- or video-sharing sites or mobile application." With the increased usage of cloud based services to save personal photos and videos, does this mean that participants may not utilize applications such as iCloud or Dropbox to save their videos or photos?

Olympians may not post about their sponsors during the games unless they have received prior approval from the IOC or their National Olympic Committee. In 2011, I predicted that the London Social Media Guidelines would cause some problems for Participants. Unfortunately, my prediction was correct.  During the 2012 London Games, the Guidelines caused a major backlash with some of the Olympians.  Therefore, it is imperative for Participants to understand the Guidelines so they can maximize their digital presence before, during, and after the Olympics so they are not penalized for non-compliance.       

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

Real Madrid Facebook Fans Are Being Targeted By Phishers

According to multiple media organizations, malware is spreading all over sports branded Facebook pages.  Fans Against Kounterfeit Enterprises has uncovered a Trojan Horse that is spreading across NFL branded pages on Facebook.  The New York Times has stated that this malware may drain Facebook users' bank accounts.

These malware attacks are not just targeting U.S. sports properties.  According to Symantec, phishers are now going after Real Madrid's branded Facebook page.  This demonstrates that there may be a coordinated attack against sports fans who visit the social media pages of major sports and entertainment properties.

The bottom line is that Facebook along with sports and entertainment properties must be very vigilant in policing their digital properties.  Sports social media enthusiasts who visit Facebook and interact with sports branded pages must be very cautious so their computers are not infected and bank accounts drained.

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

Oregon Bans Schools From Engaging Social Media Monitoring Firms To Track Students and Coaches

Oregon has officially joined Delaware, California, New Jersey, Michigan, Arkansas, Utah, and New Mexico in protecting their schools, school employees, students, and taxpayers from the costs and legal liability issues associated with social media monitoring students and employees.  Under Oregon SB 344:

"A public or private educational institution may not: (a) Require, request, suggest or cause a student or prospective student to disclose or to provide access through the student's or prospective student's user name or password to a personal social media account. (b) Compel a student or prospective student, as a condition of participation in curricular or extracurricular activities or of acceptance, to add a coach, teacher, administrator or other employee or volunteer of the educational institution to the student's or prospective student's list of contacts associated with a social media website. (c) Take, or threaten to take, any action to discharge, discipline, prohibit from participation in curricular or extracurricular activities or otherwise penalize a student or potential student for refusal to disclose the information or take actions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection."

The enactment of SB 344 will greatly benefit schools, school employees, students, and taxpayers because collectively public and private educational institutions in Oregon may save millions of dollars in potential compliance costs and tens or hundreds of  millions of dollars in potential costs associated with social media related lawsuits.  SB 344 along with similar laws around the country have banned schools from being able to utilize the social media monitoring services of UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Fieldhouse Media, and Jump Forward to track the personal social media accounts of students and school employees.

It appears that the only way for the above mentioned social media monitoring services to properly track students or school employees is if a student or employee either downloads an application onto his personal digital account(s), or provides a username(s) and/or password(s) to his personal account(s), or if a student authenticates his social media account(s).  These services may claim that all they need to properly work is a student's name or alias to search for a public social media account.  However, performing an Internet search and guessing that an account belongs to a particular student just because it is on the Internet may put you in the same position as one of the people portrayed in this hilarious State Farm Commercial.  According to CNN, as of last August, Facebook may have at least 83 million fake accounts and according to PRWeek, Twitter may have as many as 20 million fake accounts.

At least 36 states have introduced social media privacy legislation along with Congress.  It may only be a matter time before every state bans schools from utilizing the social media monitoring services of the above mentioned companies.

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

Social Media Monitoring Companies May Be Creating Millions Of Dollars in Legal Liability for NCAA Athletic Departments

State legislatures around the country are banning public and private schools from being able to utilize social media monitoring companies to track the personal digital accounts of their athletic department personnel and student-athletes.  At least 11 states  (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington), have enacted laws that ban schools from being able to verify the social media user names and/or passwords of their coaches and/or student-athletes.  Several other states have passed legislation that is waiting final approval by their state's governor.

At least 36 states along with Congress have introduced bills to protect schools and students from companies that are selling legal liability time bombs to NCAA schools.  Some of these companies may claim they are a "leader" in social media monitoring services and/or in "educating" student-athletes. Common sense and due diligence prove otherwise.

Varsity Monitor, UDiligence, JumpForward, and Fieldhouse Media each sell social media monitoring services that schools in at least 11 states may not utilize to track the personal digital accounts of either their coaches and/or their student-athletes because of new laws.  Schools deploying the social media monitoring services of these companies may be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, and/or be sued for violating their student's first and/or fourth amendment rights, and/or lose millions of dollars in federal funding.

According to Deadspin, Varsity Monitor may have some troubling ethical and legal problems to address.  According to Time Magazine, UDiligence was monetizing the personal photographs of the student-athletes it was monitoring to advertise their services.  JumpForward has advertised that they utilize the usernames and passwords of student-athletes for their social media monitoring service.

The most troubling service may be Fieldhouse Media because it appears to be trying to differentiate itself as having less invasive tactics than the other companies.  NCAA athletic departments should not be fooled.  It appears that in order for Fieldhouse Media's social media monitoring service to properly work  student-athletes need to verify their social media username(s).  Arkansas, California, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico have already generally banned schools from being able to ask a student to verify this information.

Fieldhouse Media's Kevin DeShazo's business practices appear to raise serious ethical questions.  For example, last year Mr. DeShazo created a press release announcing his social media monitoring service that quoted me without my cooperation.  Did Mr. DeShazo ask for my permission to be quoted in a press release designed to sell his social media monitoring services? No. Why is Mr. DeShazo trying to associate my reputation with a practice that I along with lawyers and risk professionals from around the country believe may pose tremendous legal and financial risks to not only NCAA athletic departments, but also athletic directors and their employees?  

If you perform due diligence on Mr. DeShazo you may find some issues that warrant further explanation.  For example, according to his publicly available LinkedIn Profile from last year it states that before he started his social media monitoring firm he had no verifiable social media or NCAA compliance/advisory experience.  Interestingly, according to his recent publicly available LinkedIn Profile it now claims that prior to starting his social media monitoring company he was working for a social media marketing firm. If Mr. DeShazo was actually working for a social media marketing company before he started his social media consulting firm why wasn't it listed previously? Also, why do some of Mr. DeShazo's listed company creation and/or employment dates not match with filings with the Oklahoma Secretary of State?

In 2001, George O'Leary, Notre Dame's head football coach resigned five days after being hired because of "inaccuracies" in his published biography.  In other words, Mr. O'Leary was caught intentionally misleading NCAA athletic departments about his background.  After George O'Leary, Jayson Blair was caught creating a web of lies and was terminated from the New York Times, and then James Frey, the author of "A Million Little Pieces" was caught lying to Oprah.   

Anyone that approaches schools to sell services to track personal social media accounts is selling a legal liability time bomb.  If a school hires a social media monitoring firm to track the personal digital content of their students or employees and it misses an indication that there may be a crime committed it may cost the school more than $100 million dollars.  For proof, just review the Penn State emails regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter.  Does a school want to be on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability because it was utilizing a social media monitoring service to track personal digital accounts?  

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

Is Google Enabling Illegal Ads That May Harm Children?

Advertisements for counterfeit merchandise, illegal drugs, pornography, etc... have been on the Internet for years.  Unfortunately, it appears some companies that have the ability to remove ads and/or links from their web sites to illegal products and/or services may not be putting forth their best effort to do so.  Refusing to properly address these issues may lead to major legal and financial consequences.

Recently, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood publicly asked Google to "address issues on its web site that are allowing users to obtain illegal and counterfeit goods, including dangerous drugs without a prescription."  According to Mr. Hood, " “[o]n every check we have made, Google’s search engine gave us easy access to illegal goods including websites which offer dangerous drugs without a prescription, counterfeit goods of every description, and infringing copies of movies, music, software and games,”. Mr. Hood further stated, “[t]his behavior means that Google is putting consumers at risk and facilitating wrongdoing, all while profiting handsomely from illegal behavior.”

Google's response to Mr. Hood's allegations that it is not doing enough to stop the proliferation of ads for counterfeit goods has been called insufficient and inadequate. According to the Associated Press, Mr. Hood has stated that Google's previous response was also "evasive" and "overly technical" and that its "lack of meaningful action is unacceptable."   

The allegations against Google are extremely serious and very troubling.  This is not the first time it has been alleged that Google is profiting from illegal behavior.  In 2006, a lawsuit was filed and later withdrawn alleging that Google profited from child pornography. In 2009, Rosetta Stone sued Google and eventually reached a confidential settlement regarding allegations that Google illegally sold Rosetta Stone trademarks to third-party advertisers that linked to sites selling counterfeit software. 

Google has a proven track record of turning a blind eye to illegal ads on its platform.  In August 2011, Google agreed to "forfeit $500 million for allowing online Canadian pharmacies to place advertisements through its AdWords program targeting consumers in the United States, resulting in the unlawful importation of controlled and non-controlled prescription drugs into the United States."  According to the Wall Street Journal, Google's chief executive knew about the illicit conduct that led to the record forfeiture.  The U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island stated, "[w]e simply know from the documents we reviewed and witnesses we interviewed that Larry Page knew what was going on". 

Google's alleged behavior of putting advertising profits ahead of its concern for users was also recently criticized in the United Kingdom.  According to The Guardian, "thousands upon thousands of people are paying wholly unnecessary fees to access basic services provided by the government". This appears to be occurring because Google is not doing enough to police its AdWords system.  It took The Guardian's researchers, "milliseconds....to find a site in breach of Google's rules."  While Google did remove one of the sites that The Guardian reported was fleecing UK consumers, "the search engine continues to promote copycat sites, happily taking the revenue that they generate".  The problem of illegal content being easily accessible on Google's web sites is so serious that Prime Minister David Cameron recently called out Google for not doing enough to protect our children.  

Facebook recently announced that it blocks users in the Netherlands from seeing ads for online gambling to comply with the Dutch Betting and Gaming Act.  Last month, LinkedIn updated its terms of service to ban the advertising of sexual services on its platform.  For more than ten years, Google has been removing content from its French and German indexes that may conflict with local laws.  If Facebook and LinkedIn are able to implement programs that block ads for services or products that are illegal in some parts of the world why hasn't Google done more to protect its users?  Is it because 95% of its revenues comes from advertising? 

According to the Pew Internet Project report, 93% of all U.S. teens between the ages of 12-17 go online.  In addition, 47% of parents are “very concerned” about their child’s exposure to inappropriate content through the Internet or cell phones.  This month, the Digital Citizens Alliance released A Report on How Google and YouTube Stand to Benefit When Bad Actors Exploit the Internet that appears to demonstrate that Google is not doing enough to protect our children.  The report provides multiple recent examples where YouTube is exhibiting ads for illegal goods and/or services next to videos that appear to be targeted to children and/or teens.  

While some regulators appear to be weighing whether television advertising regulations should be applied to online video platforms, it is apparent that more safeguards are needed to protect children from illegal ads that appear on YouTube and other web sites.  Google's less than stellar record in monitoring its ecosystem for illegal ads may push regulators and/or lawmakers to over-regulate the Internet and stifle innovation. 

Unless Google acts expeditiously to better police its digital properties, it would not surprise me if a coalition of state attorney generals commences legal action to protect our children from the significant number of illegal ads that appear on Google's web sites.  To avoid a costly and drawn out legal quagmire that may not only affect its advertising business, but the entire digital advertising economy, it may be in Google's best interest to fully cooperate with the NAAG and take meaningful action that protects users from ads for illegal products and/or services.

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

Top Secret PRISM Program Enables U.S. Government to Access the Personal Digital Content of Internet Users

According to The Washington Post, the "National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets."  These new revelations came on the heels of a report late last night that the federal government is secretly collecting vast amounts of data from Verizon phone records. 

The documents that the Washington Post has received allege that “[c]ollection (occurs) directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”  The court approved program is called PRISM.

The NSA and FBI were created to protect our country.  I became homeless for a period of time because of the terrorist attacks in New York City on 9/11/2001.  I will never forget the American heroism I witnessed from New York's Bravest and Finest that day. 

I believe that our government should have the offensive capability to protect our citizens from future terrorist attacks.  The alleged breadth and depth of our surveillance capabilities does not surprise me.  It is possible that without these programs a dirty bomb may have already been detonated in the middle of a large American city and/or a similar large scale 9/11 style attack may have occurred.

As a society we need to determine how to properly balance the safety of our country with the personal privacy of our citizens because the decisions we make today will determine our future.  Are the proper checks and balances in place to ensure that the government does not abuse its power?  This question needs to be answered sooner rather than later.

I want future generations to experience life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness without losing their personal privacy.

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

Louisiana bans Tweeting while driving

Yesterday, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed a bill that bans Tweeting while driving.  SB 147 will become effective August 1, 2013, and violators may be fined up to $175 for the first offense and up to $500 for subsequent violations.

The new law bans not only Tweeting, but any other social media usage while driving.  I believe it is important for drivers and auto manufacturers to become more aware of the distracted driving issues inherent with making one's car a mobile/apps interconnected hub.  This new law is another example of the tremendous legal liability issues inherent with social media usage.

To learn how to properly handle social media liability issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

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

Facebook losing advertising revenues due to hate speech

Facebook is the most popular social network in the world.  However, being the most popular social media platform may also create unforeseen challenges because some people and/or entities may post inappropriate and/or illegal content onto your platform.  According to the New York Times and Financial Times, multiple advertisers have stopped placing ads on Facebook because some of them have appeared next to allegedly offensive content.

Several advocacy groups have privately and publicly complained to Facebook about the content posted on its platform.  While Facebook may have initially inadvertently missed these complaints, they have caught the attention of some advertisers.  This matter may demonstrate the need for Facebook to either create a better algorithm that scans uploaded content and/or hire more people to respond to consumer complaints.

While many advertisers rely on targeted/behavioral advertising, this situation appears to demonstrate one of the downsides of this type of advertising if the proper safeguards are not implemented.  Due to the viral nature of social media, companies must better understand the platforms they utilize as advertising partners. 

To learn how to properly handle social media advertising issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

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

Washington State Bans NCAA Schools From Using Social Media Monitoring Services on Coaches

Washington State has banned employers from generally requiring employees to turn over their personal social media credentials.  Earlier this week, Washington Governor Inslee signed SB 521 that will protect Washington state employers from becoming required to hire social media monitoring companies to review the personal digital accounts of their employees.

This law may save Washington employers tens of millions of dollars in potential costs associated with social media monitoring the personal digital accounts of employees and it will protect the personal privacy of employees.  This includes the costs associated with hiring social media monitoring companies, increased cyber liability insurance costs, and legal fees and judgements inherent with negligent social media monitoring.  The law was enacted because some companies are contacting employers, in particular colleges, to sell them social media monitoring services that are legal liability time bombs.

If an employer is monitoring the personal digital accounts of their employees and misses an issue that may indicate an employee may be violating the law and the employer does not report this information to the proper authorities in a timely manner the employer may have tremendous legal liability.  A handful of emails from more than 10 years ago appears to be the main evidence that several high level administrators at Penn State knew that Jerry Sandusky was molesting young boys on its campus.  Absent the digital evidence, it would have been much more difficult to prove that some Penn State employees allegedly knew about Jerry Sandusky's illegal activities.  The email evidence so far appears to have cost Penn State almost $50 million dollars in fines, legal and investigatory fees, and other related costs.     

The only way for an employer to know whether a particular personal digital account belongs to an employee is if it verifies that the account belongs to the person whom it claims to represent.  In other words, for a social media monitoring service to properly work an employee must at a minimum authentic his personal social media user name.  In general, verifying a personal social media user name violates Washington's SB 521 along with laws in approximately ten other states.  Therefore, Washington employers, including schools may not utilize social media monitoring companies to track their employees' personal digital accounts.   

To learn how to properly handle social media issues in your company or school you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

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

Will Anthony Weiner's "Weiner" Tweets Derail His Candidacy For Mayor of New York City?

New York City is the greatest city in the world.  I lived in the City (NYC'ers call it the City) before and after 9/11.  It is the city that is full of come back stories.  As Frank Sinatra sang in New York New York, "if I can make it there I can make it anywhere".  Almost two years ago, former Congressman Anthony Weiner resigned from Congress because of inappropriate Tweets he sent that contained photos of his private parts.  However, he has recently announced his candidacy for Mayor of New York City.

In 2011, Weiner first claimed that his Twitter account was hacked after he was asked about some troubling Tweets being sent from his account.  However, when he declined to ask that the proper authorities investigate the matter I knew he was not being completely honest about the situation.  When I appeared on MSNBC to discuss the crisis I didn't want to accuse a member of Congress of lying so I only alluded to the troubling nature of the alleged claims by Weiner.

Until Weiner's social media usage became news, his political star was extremely bright.  Since leaving Congress, he has worked to rehabilitate his personal life and career.  While he may have learned some hard (no pun intended) lessons about social media, it appears that his staff needs some education on how to properly post video online to ensure it doesn't become a news story.

In general, politicians seem to be able to rebound from sex scandals and handsome profitably.  Time will tell if Weiner is added to the list.  Regardless of the outcome of the election, it will be interesting to see how Weiner handles all of the questions related to his past social media endeavors.    

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

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