Privacy law may soon catch up with the reality of the Digital/Social Media Age. Today, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted to amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to require that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant before they access a suspect's personal digital account.
This is the first step in what may become a fundamental change in digital privacy for the United States. The amendment still needs to be passed by the full Senate and then be passed in the House of Representatives and signed into law by President Obama.
While I am hopeful that Congress will act to strengthen privacy laws it is frustrating that it appears that the General Petraeus scandal may have been the catalyst for this issue. The ECPA amendment was attached to HR 2471 which will update the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The bottom line is that if HR 2471 becomes law a warrant will be required to read one's personal digital communications.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Is it a crime to intentionally Tweet false news on Twitter?
Hurricane Sandy will go down as one of the worst natural disasters in American history. According to the latest news reports, more than 100 people have died from the storm and economic damages may surpass more than $50 billion dollars.
To make matters worse, looters have made some people afraid to leave their homes to obtain much needed supplies. As a former New Yorker, my heart goes out to my friends and former neighbors who are dealing with this terrible tragedy.
During the storm, many people were Tweeting and posting content online. Some people were making predictions about the storm, others were discussing their greatest fears about the storm, some were asking for help, and others were Tweeting intentionally false and misleading information. Were all of these posts protected by the 1st Amendment?
One of those people who were allegedly making false and misleading Tweets during the storm was Shashank Tripathi. For example, one of Tweets stated, "BREAKING: Confirmed flooding on NYSE. The trading floor is flooded under more than 3 feet of water." This was an intentionally false Tweet. However, intentionally misleading Tweets are generally protected under the 1st Amendment.
New York City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. has stated that he has asked the Manhattan District Attorney to look into filing charges against Tripathi for his Tweets. Under Brandenbury v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite imminent lawless action. In addition, under U.S. v. Alvarez 132 S.Ct 2537 (2012) lying in some situations is constitutionally protected free speech. Was Mr. Tripathi's Tweets or online posts by others directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action? Most likely not. Was Mr. Tripathi lying? It appears he was misrepresenting the truth.
Regulating free speech is a very slippery slope. During Hurricane Sandy, social media helped bring out the best in people and it has also has brought out the worst in others. However, the storm should not be utilized as a reason to further regulate speech.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
To make matters worse, looters have made some people afraid to leave their homes to obtain much needed supplies. As a former New Yorker, my heart goes out to my friends and former neighbors who are dealing with this terrible tragedy.
During the storm, many people were Tweeting and posting content online. Some people were making predictions about the storm, others were discussing their greatest fears about the storm, some were asking for help, and others were Tweeting intentionally false and misleading information. Were all of these posts protected by the 1st Amendment?
One of those people who were allegedly making false and misleading Tweets during the storm was Shashank Tripathi. For example, one of Tweets stated, "BREAKING: Confirmed flooding on NYSE. The trading floor is flooded under more than 3 feet of water." This was an intentionally false Tweet. However, intentionally misleading Tweets are generally protected under the 1st Amendment.
New York City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. has stated that he has asked the Manhattan District Attorney to look into filing charges against Tripathi for his Tweets. Under Brandenbury v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite imminent lawless action. In addition, under U.S. v. Alvarez 132 S.Ct 2537 (2012) lying in some situations is constitutionally protected free speech. Was Mr. Tripathi's Tweets or online posts by others directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action? Most likely not. Was Mr. Tripathi lying? It appears he was misrepresenting the truth.
Regulating free speech is a very slippery slope. During Hurricane Sandy, social media helped bring out the best in people and it has also has brought out the worst in others. However, the storm should not be utilized as a reason to further regulate speech.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
New York City, Hurricane Sandy, and Social Media
My hearts and prayers go out to the families of those who perished because of Hurricane Sandy. The hurricane and its aftermath may end up costing at least $50 billion dollars in damage. In addition, the media is reporting that at least 50 people lost their lives due to this storm.
Sandy knocked offline popular websites Gawker, Huffington Post, and Deadspin. At this point, it is too early to fully calculate all of the damage done from this horrific storm. In the comming days, weeks, and months there may be a better assessment of how this storm has affected those living the path and wake of Sandy.
I could discuss the importance of utilizing the cloud to back up data, or how social media can save lives. However, as a former resident of New York City and one who became homeless after 9/11, I understand now is not the right time to talk about how social media or other digital technologies can be utilized to help lessen the effects of future calamities.
The bottom line is that New York City is the toughest city in the world and it will get through this and become stronger by doing so. The lessons learned from this terrible tragedy may help avert some of the same problems from happening again in the future.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sandy knocked offline popular websites Gawker, Huffington Post, and Deadspin. At this point, it is too early to fully calculate all of the damage done from this horrific storm. In the comming days, weeks, and months there may be a better assessment of how this storm has affected those living the path and wake of Sandy.
I could discuss the importance of utilizing the cloud to back up data, or how social media can save lives. However, as a former resident of New York City and one who became homeless after 9/11, I understand now is not the right time to talk about how social media or other digital technologies can be utilized to help lessen the effects of future calamities.
The bottom line is that New York City is the toughest city in the world and it will get through this and become stronger by doing so. The lessons learned from this terrible tragedy may help avert some of the same problems from happening again in the future.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Does Facebook Have A Problem With Ads For Counterfeit Merchandise?
Facebook is scheduled to release its earnings tomorrow. Will Facebook meet or beat market expectations? I don't want to speculate on its earnings report, but has Facebook's revenues been manipulated by ads for counterfeit merchandise?
According to CBS News, the company makes about $5 a year on each user. Is this number inflated due to advertising revenue received from companies who are hawking counterfeit merchandise on Facebook?
Does Facebook have a Google pharma ad problem on its hand? In 2011, Google agreed to pay a $500 million dollar fine to avoid prosecution due to displaying advertisements from Canadian pharmacies which illegally sold prescription drugs to American consumers. An important question in the Google case was did it intentionally turn a blind eye to the matter? Is Facebook intentionally turning a blind eye regarding advertising for counterfeit merchandise on its platform?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to CBS News, the company makes about $5 a year on each user. Is this number inflated due to advertising revenue received from companies who are hawking counterfeit merchandise on Facebook?
Does Facebook have a Google pharma ad problem on its hand? In 2011, Google agreed to pay a $500 million dollar fine to avoid prosecution due to displaying advertisements from Canadian pharmacies which illegally sold prescription drugs to American consumers. An important question in the Google case was did it intentionally turn a blind eye to the matter? Is Facebook intentionally turning a blind eye regarding advertising for counterfeit merchandise on its platform?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, October 15, 2012
European Union May Require Google To Change Its Privacy Policies
According to Reuters, the European Union has sent Google a letter demanding changes to Google's new privacy policy to better protect the personal data of its users. The Guardian is reporting that Google may be told on Tuesday to revisit the controversial changes introduced in March.
On January 24, 2012, Google announced that as of March 1, 2012, it would revamp its privacy policies. At the time of its announcement, Google stated that it had more than 70 privacy policies and that it is "rolling out a new main privacy policy that covers the majority of our products and explains what information we collect, and how we use it, in a much more readable way. While we’ve had to keep a handful of separate privacy notices for legal and other reasons, we’re consolidating more than 60 into our main Privacy Policy." .... "Our new Privacy Policy makes clear that, if you’re signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services."
Streamlining almost 70 privacy policies into 1 policy is much easier for compliance and legal purposes since it means that Google will only have to keep abreast of 1 uniform policy instead of more than 60. In other words, the change may decrease legal and compliance costs by millions of dollars per year. The new Privacy Policy states that Google may combine all of its users' information into one profile that may enhance its data mining capabilities which may increase its advertising revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Of Google's $37.9 billion in 2011 revenue, 96 percent came from advertising.
Before Google's new privacy policy went into effect, France's data protection authority, the CNIL, told Google in a letter dated February 27, 2012 that it would lead a Europe-wide investigation of the new policy. Soon after Google implemented the changes there was an uproar about the matter.
Since Google refused to heed the EU's prior warnings that changing its privacy policies may violate data protection laws it would not surprise me if the CNIL harshly rebukes Google and "recommends" it change its privacy policies and is "asked" to better inform its users on how it utilizes their personal data. However, until the decison is made public it would be premature to speculate how this may affect Google and its advertising clients.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
On January 24, 2012, Google announced that as of March 1, 2012, it would revamp its privacy policies. At the time of its announcement, Google stated that it had more than 70 privacy policies and that it is "rolling out a new main privacy policy that covers the majority of our products and explains what information we collect, and how we use it, in a much more readable way. While we’ve had to keep a handful of separate privacy notices for legal and other reasons, we’re consolidating more than 60 into our main Privacy Policy." .... "Our new Privacy Policy makes clear that, if you’re signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services."
Streamlining almost 70 privacy policies into 1 policy is much easier for compliance and legal purposes since it means that Google will only have to keep abreast of 1 uniform policy instead of more than 60. In other words, the change may decrease legal and compliance costs by millions of dollars per year. The new Privacy Policy states that Google may combine all of its users' information into one profile that may enhance its data mining capabilities which may increase its advertising revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Of Google's $37.9 billion in 2011 revenue, 96 percent came from advertising.
Before Google's new privacy policy went into effect, France's data protection authority, the CNIL, told Google in a letter dated February 27, 2012 that it would lead a Europe-wide investigation of the new policy. Soon after Google implemented the changes there was an uproar about the matter.
Since Google refused to heed the EU's prior warnings that changing its privacy policies may violate data protection laws it would not surprise me if the CNIL harshly rebukes Google and "recommends" it change its privacy policies and is "asked" to better inform its users on how it utilizes their personal data. However, until the decison is made public it would be premature to speculate how this may affect Google and its advertising clients.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
California is the first state to enact comprehensive social media privacy legislation
Governor Jerry Brown of California has announced that he has signed California SB 1349 and California AB 1844. California has now become the first state in the country to enact comprehensive social media privacy legislation.
Earlier this year, Maryland became the first state to enact social media privacy legislation that protects employees' digital privacy while also protecting employers from frivolous social media related lawsuits. Soon after, Delaware enacted social media privacy legislation that protects college students and post-secondary schools. In August, Illinois enacted legislation that protects employees and employers.
With the enactment of California's SB 1349, California becomes the second state to protect the social media privacy of post-secondary students which may also protect California schools from frivolous social media related lawsuits and snake oil salesmen who are pitching schools on the need for costly social media monitoring programs that are legal liability time bombs. On August 21, 2012, I stated,
"If SB 1349 is enacted, it may protect California schools from millions of dollars in additional compliance and regulatory costs, and millions of dollars in potential legal liability costs associated with social media related lawsuits."
With the enactment of California's AB 1844, California becomes the third state to protect the social media privacy rights of employees which may also protect California employers from frivolous social media related lawsuits. On August 30, 2012, I sated, "
AB 1844 is a huge win for the business community because it may provide California businesses with a legal liability shield from plaintiffs who may allege that businesses have a legal duty to monitor their employees' personal password protected digital content. This legislation may collectively save California businesses tens of millions of dollars a year in costs to monitor their employees' personal digital accounts. In addition, this law may save California businesses tens of millions of dollars per year on cyber liability insurance premiums that would accompany a duty to monitor employees in the digital/social media space.
The bottom line is that California is leading the way in the enactment social media privacy legislation that protects schools, students, prospective students, employers, employees, and job applicants.
(Full Disclosure: I advised California State Senator Yee's office on SB 1349 and Assembly Member Campos' office AB 1844.)
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Earlier this year, Maryland became the first state to enact social media privacy legislation that protects employees' digital privacy while also protecting employers from frivolous social media related lawsuits. Soon after, Delaware enacted social media privacy legislation that protects college students and post-secondary schools. In August, Illinois enacted legislation that protects employees and employers.
With the enactment of California's SB 1349, California becomes the second state to protect the social media privacy of post-secondary students which may also protect California schools from frivolous social media related lawsuits and snake oil salesmen who are pitching schools on the need for costly social media monitoring programs that are legal liability time bombs. On August 21, 2012, I stated,
"If SB 1349 is enacted, it may protect California schools from millions of dollars in additional compliance and regulatory costs, and millions of dollars in potential legal liability costs associated with social media related lawsuits."
With the enactment of California's AB 1844, California becomes the third state to protect the social media privacy rights of employees which may also protect California employers from frivolous social media related lawsuits. On August 30, 2012, I sated, "
AB 1844 is a huge win for the business community because it may provide California businesses with a legal liability shield from plaintiffs who may allege that businesses have a legal duty to monitor their employees' personal password protected digital content. This legislation may collectively save California businesses tens of millions of dollars a year in costs to monitor their employees' personal digital accounts. In addition, this law may save California businesses tens of millions of dollars per year on cyber liability insurance premiums that would accompany a duty to monitor employees in the digital/social media space.
The bottom line is that California is leading the way in the enactment social media privacy legislation that protects schools, students, prospective students, employers, employees, and job applicants.
(Full Disclosure: I advised California State Senator Yee's office on SB 1349 and Assembly Member Campos' office AB 1844.)
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
U.S. Court: Student-Athlete Social Media Monitoring Violates the 1st and 4th Amendment
A U.S. District Court in Minnesota has stated that public schools that require access to their students' password protected digital content are violating their students' 1st and 4th Amendment rights. In R.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Minnewaska Area Dist. No 2149 2012 WL 3870868, a student was allegedly intimidated into turning over her Facebook username and password, and her personal email username and password so the school could view her password protected digital content for references to a hall monitor whom the student felt was treating her unfairly.
On June 22, 2011, I stated that if the NCAA requires its students to turn over their social media credentials, "The NCAA is going down a very slippery slope that has major First Amendment and privacy implications. I believe the NCAA should rethink its social media compliance allegations against UNC."
and
on September 27, 2011, I stated "I believe UNC's new social media policy may violate the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution" because UNC's policy requires their student-athletes to provide the school access to their password protected digital content.
Public schools that require any of their students to register their social media usernames, or to provide access to their password protected digital content via required Facebook Friending or the installation of a third-party software application for any reason are in clear violation of the 1st and 4th Amendment. Therefore, any school that utilizes a social media monitoring company to track their student-athletes online may want to change their policy immediately before their legal liability exponentially increases.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Twitter Hands Over Occupy Wall Street Tweets
According to The Associated Press, Twitter has complied with a judge's order to hand over the Tweets of an Occupy Wall Street protestor. Twitter was ordered by Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. to turn over the information by today or face steep fines if it refused to do so.
On April 23, 2012, I stated that, "Once a Tweet is public to the entire world you don't have an expectation of privacy even if the Tweet has been deleted. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner learned the hard way (no pun intended) that once you post something publicly you have no expectation of privacy.
On July 3, 2012, I stated that, "If the Tweets had been on a protected Twitter account then a warrant may have been required to access the Tweets. In general, I have no problem with law enforcement obtaining and utilizing social media evidence. However, the government must go through the proper legal channels to obtain, authenticate, and utilize social media evidence at trial.
On September 11, 2012, I stated, "while I applaud Twitter fighting for the digital privacy rights of its users, I believe that continuing to fight a subpoena for content that was once public is a losing battle. However, I believe that Twitter along with other social media companies should continue fighting for the personal privacy rights of its users."
There may be future situations where the facts may better support an expectation of privacy for the Tweeter. However, it appears that the Tweets requested by the Manhattan District Attorney were intended for the entire world to view after they were posted. Since the account that posted the requested Tweets did not activate its privacy settings, I believe it is very difficult to successfully argue that there is an expectation of privacy for the Tweets in question.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
On April 23, 2012, I stated that, "Once a Tweet is public to the entire world you don't have an expectation of privacy even if the Tweet has been deleted. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner learned the hard way (no pun intended) that once you post something publicly you have no expectation of privacy.
On July 3, 2012, I stated that, "If the Tweets had been on a protected Twitter account then a warrant may have been required to access the Tweets. In general, I have no problem with law enforcement obtaining and utilizing social media evidence. However, the government must go through the proper legal channels to obtain, authenticate, and utilize social media evidence at trial.
On September 11, 2012, I stated, "while I applaud Twitter fighting for the digital privacy rights of its users, I believe that continuing to fight a subpoena for content that was once public is a losing battle. However, I believe that Twitter along with other social media companies should continue fighting for the personal privacy rights of its users."
There may be future situations where the facts may better support an expectation of privacy for the Tweeter. However, it appears that the Tweets requested by the Manhattan District Attorney were intended for the entire world to view after they were posted. Since the account that posted the requested Tweets did not activate its privacy settings, I believe it is very difficult to successfully argue that there is an expectation of privacy for the Tweets in question.
To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
NYPD drafts social media investigation rules
According to the New York Daily News, the New York City Police Department has created official rules on how to utilize social media to investigate potential criminal activity. Since the NYPD developed CompStat, it has been recognized as a leader in utilizing new digital technologies for law enforcement.
The New York Daily News states that under the new rules, NYPD "officers involved in probes involving social media may register their aliases with the department and use a department-issued laptop whose Internet-access card can't be traced back to the NYPD."
In general, I believe that the NYPD should take their rules that govern their activities offline and transfer them online. Since police officers go under cover to fight crime in the real world they should be able to do the same in the digital world. However, if a potential suspect refuses to provide access to an under cover officer via turning down a Facebook Friend request or by changing his privacy settings, the NYPD should then be required to follow the proper legal channels to obtain access to the password protected digital content.
There needs to be an appropriate balance between the needs of law enforcement and the right to privacy. As more police departments follow the NYPD's lead, there may be more opportunities to determine how to balance these issues.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Twitter must produce Occupy Wall Street Tweets
Twitter has been ordered to turn over the public Tweets of Occupy Wall Street protestor Malcolm Harris. The ruling is not surprising since the Tweets were previously public and anyone with Internet access could view them. The Tweets are no longer available online; however, they have been saved on Twitter's servers. Twitter and Harris' attorney have been trying to quash the Manhattan district attorney's subpoena demanding the Tweets but have been unsuccessful.
On April 23, 2012, I stated that, "Once a Tweet is public to the entire world you don't have an expectation of privacy even if the Tweet has been deleted. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner learned the hard way (no pun intended) that once you post something publicly you have no expectation of privacy.
On July 3, 2012, I stated that, "If the Tweets had been on a protected Twitter account then a warrant may have been required to access the Tweets. In general, I have no problem with law enforcement obtaining and utilizing social media evidence. However, the government must go through the proper legal channels to obtain, authenticate, and utilize social media evidence at trial.
While I applaud Twitter fighting for the digital privacy rights of its users, I believe that continuing to fight a subpoena for content that was once public is a losing battle. However, I believe that Twitter along with other social media companies should continue fighting for the personal privacy rights of its users.
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.
On April 23, 2012, I stated that, "Once a Tweet is public to the entire world you don't have an expectation of privacy even if the Tweet has been deleted. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner learned the hard way (no pun intended) that once you post something publicly you have no expectation of privacy.
On July 3, 2012, I stated that, "If the Tweets had been on a protected Twitter account then a warrant may have been required to access the Tweets. In general, I have no problem with law enforcement obtaining and utilizing social media evidence. However, the government must go through the proper legal channels to obtain, authenticate, and utilize social media evidence at trial.
While I applaud Twitter fighting for the digital privacy rights of its users, I believe that continuing to fight a subpoena for content that was once public is a losing battle. However, I believe that Twitter along with other social media companies should continue fighting for the personal privacy rights of its users.
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.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Will Australia's proposed digital data retention law put its citizens at risk?
Governments around the world are trying to determine how to implement digital public policy that takes into account how people are utilizing social media and other new technology platforms. Unfortunately, some lawmakers and governments are making proposals that may have unintended side effects.
For example, the Australian government recently proposed a digital data retention law that may create an undue burden on Internet service providers and technology companies. In addition, this proposal sharply curtails Internet users' digital privacy and creates more opportunities for cyber criminals. According to Computerworld, if enacted the new law would require technology companies to retain their users' data for up to two years which may include their customers' web surfing history information.
Putting aside the privacy issues, the Australian government may not realize that the more data a company is required to collect the greater its compliance costs and cyber liability insurance premiums. More data retention means increased server costs, higher electricity bills, greater security costs, etc....
While the intention of the proposed law is noble in that the government believes the law would assist in fighting crime, there may be some unintended side effects. When companies collect more data about their customers they become bigger targets for cyber criminals.
Therefore, it is imperative for governments to create sound digital public policy that properly weighs all of these concerns.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
10 tips to determine if a sports social media consultant is a fraud
In the past couple of years, multiple consulting companies have suddenly appeared on the scene to claim they are sports social media experts, gurus, leaders, trainers, etc... These firms are pitching colleges and universities to hire them to monitor their student-athletes' Tweets, Facebook posts, YouTube videos, and/or to "educate" student-athletes, coaches, administrators, etc... about social media matters.
To claim one is a sports social media consultant the barrier to entry is very low. From looking at the lack of credentials from most of those selling themselves as social media experts it appears that the only tools needed are: Internet and phone access, and a Slideshare account. With these three things you can create a free or low cost website and/or a free blog, open a free Twitter account, and create social media presentations based upon the work of others. Some of these "self anointed social media experts" may also buy a software package or create an application to track the online activities of student-athletes that may create tremendous legal problems for the schools that utilize these programs.
To claim one is a sports social media consultant the barrier to entry is very low. From looking at the lack of credentials from most of those selling themselves as social media experts it appears that the only tools needed are: Internet and phone access, and a Slideshare account. With these three things you can create a free or low cost website and/or a free blog, open a free Twitter account, and create social media presentations based upon the work of others. Some of these "self anointed social media experts" may also buy a software package or create an application to track the online activities of student-athletes that may create tremendous legal problems for the schools that utilize these programs.
The Tweets, blog posts, and presentations of these self-called experts may appear to indicate that these consultants are the real McCoy. However, once due diligence is performed on these "social media experts" it becomes evident that almost none of them have any bona fide credentials or knowledge that demonstrates they should be advising NCAA schools, student-athletes, coaches, administrators, etc... on social media and/or any issues pertaining to college athletics.
To ensure that NCAA schools do not fall victim to these self-anointed experts who do not have the best interests of schools, athletic departments, and student-athletes in mind, below is a list of characteristics to help determine if a self described NCAA social media consultant, expert, guru, trainer, leader, etc... is a fraud:
1) The consultant advises schools to buy his social media monitoring software to track and/or archive student-athletes' password and/or non-password protected online activity.
2) The consultant advises schools to request or require students to register their social media user names and/or passwords with athletic departments and/or third parties.
5) The consultant incorrectly predicted how the NCAA's social media monitoring allegation against the University of North Carolina would be resolved.
6) The consultant follows more people on his professional Twitter account than are following him back.
7) The consultant's social media credentials appear too good to be true which may indicate social media credential fraud.
8) The consultant claims that schools that utilize his social media monitoring program will not be violating any current/future laws or creating the potential for tremendous legal liability.
9) The consultant has no verifiable professional social media experience prior to 2011.
To ensure that NCAA schools do not fall victim to these self-anointed experts who do not have the best interests of schools, athletic departments, and student-athletes in mind, below is a list of characteristics to help determine if a self described NCAA social media consultant, expert, guru, trainer, leader, etc... is a fraud:
1) The consultant advises schools to buy his social media monitoring software to track and/or archive student-athletes' password and/or non-password protected online activity.
2) The consultant advises schools to request or require students to register their social media user names and/or passwords with athletic departments and/or third parties.
3) The consultant advises schools to request or require that student-athletes Facebook Friend schools and/or third parties.
4) The consultant has no verifiable professional social media and/or sports experience before starting his sports social media consulting company.
5) The consultant incorrectly predicted how the NCAA's social media monitoring allegation against the University of North Carolina would be resolved.
6) The consultant follows more people on his professional Twitter account than are following him back.
7) The consultant's social media credentials appear too good to be true which may indicate social media credential fraud.
8) The consultant claims that schools that utilize his social media monitoring program will not be violating any current/future laws or creating the potential for tremendous legal liability.
9) The consultant has no verifiable professional social media experience prior to 2011.
10) The consultant has public Twitter conversations that may be better suited via direct message and/or another more discreet format.
If a social media consultant approaches an NCAA institution and has more than one of these characteristics it most likely indicates that the consultant is not the expert, leader, guru, etc... that he claims to be but a fraud whose advice may put the safety of a university and/or its students at risk and may create tremendous legal liability for universities, coaches, athletic department administrators, and/or student-athletes.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
If a social media consultant approaches an NCAA institution and has more than one of these characteristics it most likely indicates that the consultant is not the expert, leader, guru, etc... that he claims to be but a fraud whose advice may put the safety of a university and/or its students at risk and may create tremendous legal liability for universities, coaches, athletic department administrators, and/or student-athletes.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
California: First state to pass comprehensive social media privacy legislation
California has become the first state to pass social media privacy legislation that protects employers/employees/job applicants and schools/students/student applicants. According to The Recorder, California has passed AB 1844 which prohibits employers from requiring access to their employees' or job applicants' personal social media credentials and personal password protected digital content. Last week, California passed student social media privacy legislation that would prohibit post-secondary educational institutions from requiring access to their students' or student applicants' personal social media credentials and personal password protected digital content.
Earlier this year, Maryland and Illinois enacted social media privacy legislation that may protect employers from social media related lawsuits while also protecting the personal privacy of employees and job applicants. Last month, Delaware enacted social media privacy legislation that may protect schools against social media related lawsuits while also protecting the personal privacy of students and student applicants. However, California is the first state to pass comprehensive legislation that protects employers/employees/job applicants and schools/students/student applicants. If Governor Brown signs both SB 1349 and AB 1844, California will become the first state to enact across the board social media privacy legislation.
AB 1844 is a huge win for the business community because it may provide California businesses with a legal liability shield from plaintiffs who may allege that businesses have a legal duty to monitor their employees' personal password protected digital content. This legislation may collectively save California businesses tens of millions of dollars a year in costs to monitor their employees' personal digital accounts. In addition, this law may save California businesses tens of 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 California 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 their employees' activities outside of work in the real world so employers should not create a duty to monitor their employees' non-corporate digital activities.
This legislation is also a major victory for employees and job applicants. California employers 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 hiring 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.
(Full Disclosure: I advised California Assembly Member Campos' office on this legislation.)
Earlier this year, Maryland and Illinois enacted social media privacy legislation that may protect employers from social media related lawsuits while also protecting the personal privacy of employees and job applicants. Last month, Delaware enacted social media privacy legislation that may protect schools against social media related lawsuits while also protecting the personal privacy of students and student applicants. However, California is the first state to pass comprehensive legislation that protects employers/employees/job applicants and schools/students/student applicants. If Governor Brown signs both SB 1349 and AB 1844, California will become the first state to enact across the board social media privacy legislation.
AB 1844 is a huge win for the business community because it may provide California businesses with a legal liability shield from plaintiffs who may allege that businesses have a legal duty to monitor their employees' personal password protected digital content. This legislation may collectively save California businesses tens of millions of dollars a year in costs to monitor their employees' personal digital accounts. In addition, this law may save California businesses tens of 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 California 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 their employees' activities outside of work in the real world so employers should not create a duty to monitor their employees' non-corporate digital activities.
This legislation is also a major victory for employees and job applicants. California employers 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 hiring 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.
(Full Disclosure: I advised California Assembly Member Campos' office on this legislation.)
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Does Prince Harry have a claim for invasion of privacy?
Some naked photos of the United Kingdom's Prince Harry have been leaked online. There are rumors that there is also video of Prince Harry in the buff quietly being shopped to the highest bidder. These photos and the video were allegedly taken in the privacy of Prince Harry's private hotel suite in Las Vegas, Nevada.
In Montesan v. Donrey Media Group, 668 P.2d 1081 (1983), Nevada reiterated that it has impliedly recognized an action for invasion of privacy. According to the Second Restatement of Torts, § 652D (1977), in order to maintain a cause of action for invasion of privacy it must be proven that a public disclosure of private facts has occurred which would be offensive and objectionble to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
Does Prince Harry have an expectation of privacy in his private hotel room? Did Prince Harry give up his right to privacy when he invited others into his personal hotel suite? Could the person(s) who are allegedly shopping these photos and/or videos be charged with state and/or federal crimes? Does Prince Harry have a civil cause of action against the person(s) who shot the video?
In the criminal case against Dharun Ravi for webcasting a sexual encounter that his roommate had with another person in the privacy of their shared Rutgers University dorm room Ravi was found guilty of invasion of privacy. Since people generally have an expectation of privacy in their dorm rooms and own homes should they also have an expectation of privacy in their hotel suites?
How far should this right extend in the Social Media Age?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Does Prince Harry have an expectation of privacy in his private hotel room? Did Prince Harry give up his right to privacy when he invited others into his personal hotel suite? Could the person(s) who are allegedly shopping these photos and/or videos be charged with state and/or federal crimes? Does Prince Harry have a civil cause of action against the person(s) who shot the video?
In the criminal case against Dharun Ravi for webcasting a sexual encounter that his roommate had with another person in the privacy of their shared Rutgers University dorm room Ravi was found guilty of invasion of privacy. Since people generally have an expectation of privacy in their dorm rooms and own homes should they also have an expectation of privacy in their hotel suites?
How far should this right extend in the Social Media Age?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Friday, August 24, 2012
South Korea bans social media account registration
South Korea's highest court unanimously ruled that South Koreans are not required to register their user names or other online account information in order to make comments on the Internet. This reaffirms that South Korea will protect freedom of speech on social media and other online platforms.
When applying this law to universities in South Korea, it appears to mean that public school students are not required provide their schools their social media user names or other digital account information. In a democratic society, public schools may not require their students to register their Facebook accounts, Twitter handles, and/or other social media credentials in order to obtain or keep their scholarships. It is clearly unconstitutional for a U.S. public university to demand that their students register their digital or social media usernames or online persona with a university or a third party in order to keep their scholarship or participate in extracurricular activities. This protection extends to all students including student-athletes and other students on scholarship.
Unfortunately, there are multiple U.S. public colleges and universities that are following the advice of self-described social media consultants who are pitching schools on requiring their student-athletes to register their social media usernames with their schools and/or Facebook Friend a coach and/or download social media monitoring software so the school may identify the student's online persona and track their online behavior.
Any social media consultant that advocates schools utilize a social media monitoring service to track their student-athletes' online behavior is a snake oil salesman that should not be trusted because this advice may create tremendous legal liability for those universities and individuals who follow this advice.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
When applying this law to universities in South Korea, it appears to mean that public school students are not required provide their schools their social media user names or other digital account information. In a democratic society, public schools may not require their students to register their Facebook accounts, Twitter handles, and/or other social media credentials in order to obtain or keep their scholarships. It is clearly unconstitutional for a U.S. public university to demand that their students register their digital or social media usernames or online persona with a university or a third party in order to keep their scholarship or participate in extracurricular activities. This protection extends to all students including student-athletes and other students on scholarship.
Unfortunately, there are multiple U.S. public colleges and universities that are following the advice of self-described social media consultants who are pitching schools on requiring their student-athletes to register their social media usernames with their schools and/or Facebook Friend a coach and/or download social media monitoring software so the school may identify the student's online persona and track their online behavior.
Any social media consultant that advocates schools utilize a social media monitoring service to track their student-athletes' online behavior is a snake oil salesman that should not be trusted because this advice may create tremendous legal liability for those universities and individuals who follow this advice.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)