Should it be legal to unlock your cell phone? It was up until earlier this year. However, due to a ruling by the Library of Congress that was based on a new interpretation of the DMCA it is now against the law to unlock your legally bought subsidized cell phone.
Last month, a petition that was started on the White House's web site received more than 100,000 e-signatures to request that that ruling be changed. Today, the White House responded and stated that unlocking cell phones should be legal.
Once a consumer has fulfilled his contractual obligations to a service provider for a subsidized cell phone why shouldn't he be able to utilize his cell phone on another carrier? When someone buys a new car and is finished paying off any outstanding loans on it he is able to generally sell or utilize the vehicle in any manner that suits his purpose. This includes updating the car's engines and internal mechanics. Therefore, why shouldn't cell phone owners have the same rights?
While the White House and the FCC's acknowledgement that this is a matter that may need a legislative resolution is good news; changing the law will take more than a couple of announcements and/or blog posts.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
Massachusetts Bill To Ban Data-Mining of Student Emails
Massachusetts has become the first state to introduce legislation that would ban companies that provide cloud computing services from processing student data for commercial purposes. MA Bill 331 is sponsored by Rep. Carlo Basile and it was referred to the House Committee on Education on January 22, 2013.
MA Bill 331 states, "Section 1. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary any person who provides a cloud computing service to an educational institution operating within the State shall process data of a student enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth grade for the sole purpose of providing the cloud computing service to the educational institution and shall not process such data for any commercial purpose, including but not limited to advertising purposes that benefit the cloud computing service provider."
The bill may be interpreted to mean that firms who offer cloud computing services to Massachusetts academic institutions that enroll kindergarten through twelfth graders may not utilize the information contained in student emails for monetary gain. If this legislation is enacted, cloud service providers may not serve ads to students on school provided digital accounts based upon a student's digitally expressed thoughts or ideas.
Internet advertisers monetize the thoughts and/or ideas of its users via behavioral advertising. Digital behavioral advertising may occur when an email service provider scans the content of an email and then serves the user ads based upon the information it processes. For example, if a student emailed his health or sex education teacher to ask about sexually transmitted diseases or teen pregnancy, MA Bill 331 would ban a cloud computing service provider from serving ads for condoms or other related products or services to the student's school owned digital account.
According to a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, "young people are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising." Therefore, would it be acceptable if a teacher was paid to review student class work, noted student preferences, and then returned graded assignments with offers for discounted merchandise based upon a student's home work or in class assignments?
Since it would be a breach of the National Education Association's Code of Ethics if a teacher utilizes personal knowledge obtained from his students for private advantage, shouldn't it also be a breach of the Code of Ethics if a cloud computing service provider utilizes an algorithm to do the same digitally? Because it is not acceptable if teachers offered discounts based upon student preferences gleaned from school work it should also not be acceptable if a computer algorithm processed the same information digitally and then served ads based upon the same data.
While MA Bill 331 is a good start, it should be amended to cover post-secondary students because Massachusetts is home to tens of thousands of college students and some of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world. Shouldn't students in college and graduate school also have their student-teacher interactions protected from being utilized for commercial purposes?
In general, Google's Apps For Education standard agreement provides schools the ability to serve ads to its students. The agreements generally state that all advertising revenue generated will be retained by Google so at this point it appears that schools do not have an economic incentive to turn on the behavioral advertising function. However, what will stop Google from approaching schools and stating that in order to continue receiving Google Apps for Education for free the advertising function must be enabled? Should graded school assignments and personal student-teacher interactions be utilized to serve ads to students in order to pay for educational software?
Educational software is expensive and because of the terrible recession that our country has experienced many states have seen steep cuts in education funding. While Massachusetts public schools have not yet experienced the same type of funding cuts that have beleaguered many other states what will happen when Massachusetts decides it must recalibrate how it dedicates its resources and K-12 schools are negatively affected by this change?
Tens of thousands of kindergarten through twelfth grade students in Massachusetts may already be at risk of having their school work data mined for advertising purposes. For example, students who attend Burlington Public Schools and Plymouth Public Schools in Massachusetts utilize Google Apps For Education. If students at these schools use their school provided Gmail based accounts after they graduate or link their personal YouTube or Google Plus account to their school sanctioned Gmail account their student-teacher interactions and class work may be monetized by Google and/or its advertising partners. However, if MA Bill 331 is enacted it may stop third parties from being able to monetize the digital thoughts and ideas of Massachusetts students and better protect their privacy and security.
96 percent of Google's $37.9 billion in 2011 revenue was earned from advertising. Is Google providing schools free access to its Google Apps For Education software in the hopes that it will eventually earn advertising revenue from data mining our children's digital school assignments and education-related interactions? Absent state and/or federal laws that ban the data mining of our children's class work on school provided digital accounts companies that offer educational cloud computing services to our schools may utilize our kid's personal private data for commercial gain.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Right To Privacy Will Be Protected By The Social Networking Online Protection Act
The Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA) was recently reintroduced by Congressman Eliot Engel of New York. SNOPA is the first bipartisan federal legislation designed to protect the digital privacy of employees, job applicants, students, and student applicants in the Social Media Age. The legislation may also provide a legal liability shield to businesses and academic institutions that may make it difficult for litigants to claim that these entities have a legal duty to monitor the personal digital accounts of their employees and/or students.
The right to digital privacy needs to be statutorily strengthened in the United States. Last year, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Jones ruled that the government needs a warrant in order to place a GPS device onto a suspect's car. The Jones' decision demonstrates that the judiciary recognizes that people still have an expectation of privacy in the Social Media Age.
At this point, there have been only a handful of publicized examples where employees have alleged that their employer and/or a company with whom they interviewed with requested access to their personal digital accounts. This may be an underreported problem because according to a 2012 Harris Interactive Survey, 37% of hiring managers utilize social networking sites to screen candidates.
Without the protections that SNOPA provides how long will it be before it becomes commonplace for employers to require job applicants and/or employees provide access to personal password protected digital accounts as part of the employment process? In 2008, Congress enacted the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) to bar employers from using genetic information when making employment decisions. GINA was not enacted because of a high profile incident where an employer required a candidate to submit his genetic information as part of the application process; it was enacted as a pre-emptive measure. In contrast, there are already multiple verifiable situations where employers are requiring job applicants provide their personal digital credentials as part of the application process.
While there have only been a handful of publicized incidents where employers are requiring access to their candidates' personal password protected digital content, thousands of students across the country are being required to turn over their digital usernames and/or passwords and/or Facebook Friend a school administrator and/or install cyberstalking software in order to attend a public school, keep a scholarship or participate in extra-curricular activities.
There have been multiple incidents where public school students have been forced without reasonable suspicion to turn over their personal Facebook and/or email usernames and passwords to school administrators. Universities across the country are requiring student-athletes to register their social media user names and/or Facebook Friend school officials and/or install cyberstalking software to track and archive their personal digital activity.
With access comes responsibility. Last year, a former Library of Congress employee alleged in a lawsuit that because his former supervisor viewed one of the groups he liked on Facebook he was discriminated against. The family of Yardley Love, a University of Virginia (UVA) student-athlete who was murdered on UVA's campus by her former boyfriend George Huguely (also a UVA student-athlete), is suing UVA and school employees for $30 million dollars for failing to properly protect their daughter.
Love's family alleges that UVA and its employees knew or should have known Huguely was a danger to Love because Huguely was not properly disciplined for past known inappropriate conduct because he was a star student-athlete. While it is too soon to speculate what type of evidence Love's family will introduce during legal proceedings, if UVA and/or its employees had access to Huguely's or Love's personal digital accounts and missed and/or intentionally ignored content that may have indicated a potential problem this may create tremendous legal liability for UVA and/or its employees.
If SNOPA is enacted students will not have to worry about being required to provide access to their personal digital accounts in order to attend the school of their dreams or keep their scholarships. In addition, academic institutions that do not violate the law may have a strong legal liability shield against litigants who claim schools have a legal duty to become the social media police.
Protecting personal digital privacy will help grow the economy and foment new technological breakthroughs. If people believe their personal password protected digital thoughts, ideas, and creations are statutorily protected they will increase their usage of Dropbox, Microsoft SkyDrive, Google Plus, Facebook, etc... It is vital for our country's competitive future to implement public policy that encourages increased digital platform participation in our increasingly interconnected world.
SNOPA would encourage widespread consumer adoption of cloud based platforms because users will not have to worry that their employer or school may require they provide access to their personal password protected digital accounts absent a judicial order. SNOPA is bipartisan win-win legislation that protects employers, employees, job applicants, schools, students, and student-applicants.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
(Full Disclosure: I am working with Congressman Engel's office on this bill.)
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
U.S. Social Networking Online Protection Act Reintroduced
The Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA) was reintroduced today by Congressman Elliot Engel of New York. The bill would ban employers and
schools from being able to request or require that employees, job applicants, students, or student applicants provide access to personal password protected digital accounts.
The bill is a win for businesses, schools, employees, job applicants, student applicants, students, and the right to privacy.
With access comes responsibility. Without access it would be very difficult for an employer or school to be held legally liable for the digital content that an employee or student posts on their personal digital accounts. Therefore, the bill may protect businesses, schools, and taxpayers from tremendous legal liability.
This bill is needed because some companies are approaching employers and schools with the pitch: require your employees and/or students to verify their digital media credentials so we can scan everything they have said online, everything said about them online, and everything their digital connections discuss online. In general, nobody should be required to verify their personal digital credentials/activities/content absent a legal proceeding that requires it. More information will be forthcoming.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
(Full Disclosure: I am working with Congressman Engel's office on this bill.)
With access comes responsibility. Without access it would be very difficult for an employer or school to be held legally liable for the digital content that an employee or student posts on their personal digital accounts. Therefore, the bill may protect businesses, schools, and taxpayers from tremendous legal liability.
This bill is needed because some companies are approaching employers and schools with the pitch: require your employees and/or students to verify their digital media credentials so we can scan everything they have said online, everything said about them online, and everything their digital connections discuss online. In general, nobody should be required to verify their personal digital credentials/activities/content absent a legal proceeding that requires it. More information will be forthcoming.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
(Full Disclosure: I am working with Congressman Engel's office on this bill.)
Friday, February 1, 2013
FTC: More Mobile Apps Privacy Disclosures Required
The FTC recently released its “Mobile Privacy Disclosure: Building Trust Through Transparency” staff report.
The theme of the report is that mobile platform operating system
providers (Amazon, Apple, BlackBerry, Google, and Microsoft), app
developers, ad networks, and analytic companies need to provide
consumers with timely, easy-to-understand disclosures about the data
that is collected about them and how the data is utilized.
It appears to build on the September 2012 report “Marketing Your Mobile App: Get it Right From the Start”. Some of the recommendations in the September 2012 report include: build privacy considerations in from the start, honor your privacy promises, collect sensitive information only with consent, and keep user data secure.
Some members of the app ecosystem appear to have taken the FTC’s September 2012 report very seriously and anticipated that the FTC would soon crack down on companies that may not be following the FTC’s prior digital privacy recommendations. Before the FTC’s new Mobile Privacy Disclosure staff report was released, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft teamed up to create a new initiative to educate app developers about digital privacy. The program is called ACT 4 Apps and it plans to create an environment where app developers may interact with privacy experts to learn how to abide by state and federal privacy laws.
The announcement that the FTC has fined social networking app Path $800,000 for alleged privacy violations along with this new staff report continues to demonstrates that the FTC is spending considerable resources on digital privacy issues. When the FTC announced last August that Google agreed to pay a $22.5 million dollar fine for misrepresenting to users of Apple’s Safari Internet browser that it would not place tracking “cookies” or serve targeted ads to those users that should have been a wake up call to the digital industry that their business practices may be more heavily scrutinized. December’s announcement that the FTC adopted final amendments to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA) to strengthen kids’ privacy protections should have been recognized as a signal by the digital industry that it must become more proactive in protecting the personal data of its users.
This newly released staff report recommends that mobile platforms should: provide just-in-time disclosures to consumers and obtain their affirmative express consent before allowing apps to access sensitive content like geolocation; consider providing just-in-time disclosures and obtain affirmative express consent for other content that consumers would find sensitive in many contexts; consider developing a one-stop “dashboard” approach to allow consumers to review the types of content accessed by the apps they have downloaded; consider developing icons to depict the transmission of user data; promote app developer best practices; consider providing consumers with clear disclosures about the extent to which platforms review apps prior to making them available for download in the app stores, and conduct compliance checks after the apps have been placed in the app stores; and consider offering a Do Not Track (DNT) mechanism for mobile phone users.
App developers should: have a privacy policy and make sure it is easily accessible; provide just-in-time disclosures and obtain affirmative express consent before collecting and sharing sensitive information; improve coordination and communication with ad networks and other third parties that provide services for apps so the app developers can better understand the software they are using and, in turn, provide accurate disclosures to consumers; and consider participating in self-regulatory programs, trade associations, and industry organizations.
This staff report states that advertising networks and other third parties should: communicate with app developers so that the developers can provide truthful disclosures to consumers; and work with platforms to ensure effective implementation of DNT for mobile platforms.
The overall theme of this staff report is that the mobile apps industry must do a better job of communicating to its users what data is being collected and how it is being utilized. If mobile apps stakeholders do not move in a timely manner to implement the recommendations in this report more regulation may be required to protect the personal privacy of consumers. The bottom line is that the FTC may closely monitor how stakeholders react to its recommendations to determine if more regulation may be required to protect the digital privacy of users.
While mobile apps offer some great benefits and exciting new ways to interact with others, there are tremendous privacy issues that need to be addressed. Mobile ecosystem gatekeepers and app developers need to work with regulators and lawmakers to protect the personal privacy of mobile app users and to ensure that the industry does not become over-regulated.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
It appears to build on the September 2012 report “Marketing Your Mobile App: Get it Right From the Start”. Some of the recommendations in the September 2012 report include: build privacy considerations in from the start, honor your privacy promises, collect sensitive information only with consent, and keep user data secure.
Some members of the app ecosystem appear to have taken the FTC’s September 2012 report very seriously and anticipated that the FTC would soon crack down on companies that may not be following the FTC’s prior digital privacy recommendations. Before the FTC’s new Mobile Privacy Disclosure staff report was released, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft teamed up to create a new initiative to educate app developers about digital privacy. The program is called ACT 4 Apps and it plans to create an environment where app developers may interact with privacy experts to learn how to abide by state and federal privacy laws.
The announcement that the FTC has fined social networking app Path $800,000 for alleged privacy violations along with this new staff report continues to demonstrates that the FTC is spending considerable resources on digital privacy issues. When the FTC announced last August that Google agreed to pay a $22.5 million dollar fine for misrepresenting to users of Apple’s Safari Internet browser that it would not place tracking “cookies” or serve targeted ads to those users that should have been a wake up call to the digital industry that their business practices may be more heavily scrutinized. December’s announcement that the FTC adopted final amendments to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA) to strengthen kids’ privacy protections should have been recognized as a signal by the digital industry that it must become more proactive in protecting the personal data of its users.
This newly released staff report recommends that mobile platforms should: provide just-in-time disclosures to consumers and obtain their affirmative express consent before allowing apps to access sensitive content like geolocation; consider providing just-in-time disclosures and obtain affirmative express consent for other content that consumers would find sensitive in many contexts; consider developing a one-stop “dashboard” approach to allow consumers to review the types of content accessed by the apps they have downloaded; consider developing icons to depict the transmission of user data; promote app developer best practices; consider providing consumers with clear disclosures about the extent to which platforms review apps prior to making them available for download in the app stores, and conduct compliance checks after the apps have been placed in the app stores; and consider offering a Do Not Track (DNT) mechanism for mobile phone users.
App developers should: have a privacy policy and make sure it is easily accessible; provide just-in-time disclosures and obtain affirmative express consent before collecting and sharing sensitive information; improve coordination and communication with ad networks and other third parties that provide services for apps so the app developers can better understand the software they are using and, in turn, provide accurate disclosures to consumers; and consider participating in self-regulatory programs, trade associations, and industry organizations.
This staff report states that advertising networks and other third parties should: communicate with app developers so that the developers can provide truthful disclosures to consumers; and work with platforms to ensure effective implementation of DNT for mobile platforms.
The overall theme of this staff report is that the mobile apps industry must do a better job of communicating to its users what data is being collected and how it is being utilized. If mobile apps stakeholders do not move in a timely manner to implement the recommendations in this report more regulation may be required to protect the personal privacy of consumers. The bottom line is that the FTC may closely monitor how stakeholders react to its recommendations to determine if more regulation may be required to protect the digital privacy of users.
While mobile apps offer some great benefits and exciting new ways to interact with others, there are tremendous privacy issues that need to be addressed. Mobile ecosystem gatekeepers and app developers need to work with regulators and lawmakers to protect the personal privacy of mobile app users and to ensure that the industry does not become over-regulated.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Notre Dame, Manti Te'o, Catfishing, Online Impersonation, and the Law
Notre Dame has one of the most storied college football programs in the country. From the Gipper to Knute Rockne to Ara Parseghian to Rudy to Joe Montana, Notre Dame has a great reputation for winning with mystic and honor. Unfortunately, a recent incident may temporarily tarnish Notre Dame's reputation.
Notre Dame's biggest star Manti Te'o who led the Fighting Irish to the BCS championship game this year and was 2nd in the recent Heisman Trophy voting was allegedly a victim of an online hoax. During this past season, Manti Te'o's grandmother passed away and then within the same week his alleged girlfriend also died. Having more than one person you are close with die in such a short period of time may be very difficult to handle and Manti Te'o received a tremendous amount of media attention during this past season partly because of it, and because he was the biggest star on the Notre Dame football team.
There were many red flags about this story that the media and Manti Te'o should have picked up on months ago. Unfortunately, it appears that Manti Te'o did not realize he had been allegedly catfished until recently. According to the Urban Dictionay, catfishing occurs when someone utilizes social media to create a false identify to pursue an online romance.
In general, catfishing is not against the law. Multiple states have online impersonation laws that make it a crime to impersonate an actual person. However, both California and Washington state's law focus on impersonating real people and not those who are part of someone's imagination. Other states such as Arizona are also trying to pass legislation banning online impersonation. Unfortunately, some of these laws may infringe on the First Amendment and may eventually be declared unconstitutional.
This incident may cost Manti Te'o tens of millions of dollars in potential earnings. Even though he did not win the Heisman Trophy or the BCS national championship, Manti Te'o had a good story and was a great college player. However, NFL teams who were thinking about selecting him in the upcoming NFL draft may think twice about someone who either fell for an online hoax or who may have been part of an alleged marketing scheme.
Until all of the facts have been verified it is too soon to determine whether Manti Te'o was catfished or he intentionally perpetuated misinformation for personal gain. I am giving Manti Te'o the benefit of the doubt at this point because it appears that he was at some point a victim and continued to be a victim of a cruel joke for a period of time. Manti Te'o may have continued perpetuating the misleading statements about his alleged girlfriend after learning the truth out of embarrassment that he fell for it.
Unfortunately, NFL teams and potential sponsors may not want to spend millions of dollars on someone who was allegedly duped in such a public manner. Despite this incident, I believe an NFL team may take a chance on Manti Te'o because he may have a chip on his should to prove this incident was an aberration and that he has the talent to become a great NFL player.
Until all the facts have been verified, it is too early to determine if an online impersonation law may apply to this situation. There are reports that the photograph(s) of a real person was utilized; if so, that may help determine if an online impersonation law may be applicable.
The bottom line is that one must always be careful when dealing with others online and if someone doesn't have a phone and/or can't meet you in person that may indicate you are being catfished.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Notre Dame's biggest star Manti Te'o who led the Fighting Irish to the BCS championship game this year and was 2nd in the recent Heisman Trophy voting was allegedly a victim of an online hoax. During this past season, Manti Te'o's grandmother passed away and then within the same week his alleged girlfriend also died. Having more than one person you are close with die in such a short period of time may be very difficult to handle and Manti Te'o received a tremendous amount of media attention during this past season partly because of it, and because he was the biggest star on the Notre Dame football team.
There were many red flags about this story that the media and Manti Te'o should have picked up on months ago. Unfortunately, it appears that Manti Te'o did not realize he had been allegedly catfished until recently. According to the Urban Dictionay, catfishing occurs when someone utilizes social media to create a false identify to pursue an online romance.
In general, catfishing is not against the law. Multiple states have online impersonation laws that make it a crime to impersonate an actual person. However, both California and Washington state's law focus on impersonating real people and not those who are part of someone's imagination. Other states such as Arizona are also trying to pass legislation banning online impersonation. Unfortunately, some of these laws may infringe on the First Amendment and may eventually be declared unconstitutional.
This incident may cost Manti Te'o tens of millions of dollars in potential earnings. Even though he did not win the Heisman Trophy or the BCS national championship, Manti Te'o had a good story and was a great college player. However, NFL teams who were thinking about selecting him in the upcoming NFL draft may think twice about someone who either fell for an online hoax or who may have been part of an alleged marketing scheme.
Until all of the facts have been verified it is too soon to determine whether Manti Te'o was catfished or he intentionally perpetuated misinformation for personal gain. I am giving Manti Te'o the benefit of the doubt at this point because it appears that he was at some point a victim and continued to be a victim of a cruel joke for a period of time. Manti Te'o may have continued perpetuating the misleading statements about his alleged girlfriend after learning the truth out of embarrassment that he fell for it.
Unfortunately, NFL teams and potential sponsors may not want to spend millions of dollars on someone who was allegedly duped in such a public manner. Despite this incident, I believe an NFL team may take a chance on Manti Te'o because he may have a chip on his should to prove this incident was an aberration and that he has the talent to become a great NFL player.
Until all the facts have been verified, it is too early to determine if an online impersonation law may apply to this situation. There are reports that the photograph(s) of a real person was utilized; if so, that may help determine if an online impersonation law may be applicable.
The bottom line is that one must always be careful when dealing with others online and if someone doesn't have a phone and/or can't meet you in person that may indicate you are being catfished.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Social Media Monitoring NCAA Student-Athletes May Create Legal Liability in Excess of $100 Million Dollars
In the past 6 months, California, Michigan, Delaware, and New Jersey have enacted laws banning school athletic departments from requesting or requiring their student-athletes verify their social media/digital media usernames/passwords and/or install cyberstalking software onto their personal accounts or devices. Many other states along with Congress have introduced legislation to ban these practices to protect schools from legal liability and to protect the personal privacy of students.
Unfortunately, some companies/"social media experts" are approaching NCAA schools and intentionally misleading athletic departments about their experience, their understanding of NCAA compliance, and their knowledge of state and federal law. Some of these companies may claim that their "social media monitoring" services "respect privacy", or "promote compliance", or they "never ask for passwords" or that their services"facilitate education". These claims are misleading and may create tremendous legal liability for NCAA athletic programs that engage any of these companies.
The legal liability of engaging a social media monitoring company to digitally track a program's student-athletes or employees may be tens of millions of dollars. Anyone who disagrees with this analysis needs to review the facts about the Penn State Jerry Sandusky scandal. Emails from 10 plus years ago destroyed the careers of several well respected members of the Penn State administration/faculty and may cost the school more than $100 million dollars in fines/legal fees/judgements/settlements, etc..
Digital evidence (emails) was key in the Freeh Report which the NCAA appears to have relied on to levy a $60 million dollar fine against Penn State. The total cost of this terrible scandal to Penn State may reach $150-$200 million dollars. Absent the digital evidence, the Freeh Report may have reached a different conclusion, the NCAA may not have had the evidence to support a fine and other sanctions, and plaintiffs may have a hard time proving Penn State knew about Mr. Sandusky's behavior.
Do schools and athletic department employees want to monitor and archive potential evidence that may be discoverable and utilized against them in lawsuits? The bottom line is that NCAA athletic departments should not engage services that may harm their interests and 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 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Unfortunately, some companies/"social media experts" are approaching NCAA schools and intentionally misleading athletic departments about their experience, their understanding of NCAA compliance, and their knowledge of state and federal law. Some of these companies may claim that their "social media monitoring" services "respect privacy", or "promote compliance", or they "never ask for passwords" or that their services"facilitate education". These claims are misleading and may create tremendous legal liability for NCAA athletic programs that engage any of these companies.
The legal liability of engaging a social media monitoring company to digitally track a program's student-athletes or employees may be tens of millions of dollars. Anyone who disagrees with this analysis needs to review the facts about the Penn State Jerry Sandusky scandal. Emails from 10 plus years ago destroyed the careers of several well respected members of the Penn State administration/faculty and may cost the school more than $100 million dollars in fines/legal fees/judgements/settlements, etc..
Digital evidence (emails) was key in the Freeh Report which the NCAA appears to have relied on to levy a $60 million dollar fine against Penn State. The total cost of this terrible scandal to Penn State may reach $150-$200 million dollars. Absent the digital evidence, the Freeh Report may have reached a different conclusion, the NCAA may not have had the evidence to support a fine and other sanctions, and plaintiffs may have a hard time proving Penn State knew about Mr. Sandusky's behavior.
Do schools and athletic department employees want to monitor and archive potential evidence that may be discoverable and utilized against them in lawsuits? The bottom line is that NCAA athletic departments should not engage services that may harm their interests and 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 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Norway's Consumer Ombudsman: Facebook Generally Agrees it Has a Counterfeit Goods Advertising Problem
According to Norway's Consumer Ombudsman, Facebook has a problem with counterfeit goods and scamming schemes being advertised on its platform. On November 6, 2012, Norway's Consumer Ombudsman held a meeting with Facebook's representatives and the topic of discussion was misleading advertising for counterfeit goods and scamming sites on its website.
Norway's Consumer Ombudsman's position appears to be that Facebook allows onto its website a significant number of ads for web shops and scamming schemes that are in violation of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act (MCA). These finding are very troubling and may indicate that Facebook may need to spend significantly more to comply with Norway's Marketing Control Act.
How much more will Facebook need to spend to comply with Norway's law will depend on the depth of problem. However, it appears that Facebook's screening process may also fall short here in the United States. I have personally reviewed hundreds of suspected ads for counterfeit merchandise on Facebook so I believe this may be a much larger challenge than many realize.
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 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Norway's Consumer Ombudsman's position appears to be that Facebook allows onto its website a significant number of ads for web shops and scamming schemes that are in violation of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act (MCA). These finding are very troubling and may indicate that Facebook may need to spend significantly more to comply with Norway's Marketing Control Act.
How much more will Facebook need to spend to comply with Norway's law will depend on the depth of problem. However, it appears that Facebook's screening process may also fall short here in the United States. I have personally reviewed hundreds of suspected ads for counterfeit merchandise on Facebook so I believe this may be a much larger challenge than many realize.
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 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Survey Says: Parents Care About Online Data Privacy in Their Children's Schools
A
Brunswick
Insight survey was released earlier this week regarding digital privacy
issues that affect school students. The online
survey was conducted between August 25-28, 2012 and questioned 1,035 American adults
who had children in grades 1-12. The survey's
margin of error was +-3% at the 95% confidence interval.
The
overall findings of the survey strongly indicate that U.S. parents care deeply
about the digital privacy of their children.
The survey results demonstrate that a national conversation is needed
regarding student privacy in the Digital Age.
Overall,
93% of parents surveyed expressed concern regarding online tracking of their children.
A majority of parents questioned (54%) stated they were "very concerned"
about online advertising companies tracking the email and Internet usage habits
of their children while in school in order to target them with Internet
advertising. Even though more than nine in 10 parents surveyed were concerned that
at some schools online advertising companies may be tracking the email and
Internet usage habits of children in order to target them with
digital advertising, almost half (49%) of parents stated they have heard
"nothing at all" about this issue.
An
overwhelming majority (92%) of parents agreed that school boards that accept
free email services from advertising firms should require the companies to
offer a privacy policy expressly designed for school children that provides
strict guarantees against user profiling or web tracking. In addition, 90% of parents surveyed agreed
that school boards that accept free email services from advertising firms
should insist on contracts that expressly ban the use of children's email for
ad-related purposes, including targeting of ads outside the email service. Furthermore, 87% of parents indicated that
school boards that accept free email services from advertising firms should
insist on contracts that expressly require that all advertising functionality,
even if purely optional, be completely removed from the software.
Interestingly, 84% of parents questioned
stated that they would be likely to take action against online tracking in
schools and 50% of those questioned stated they would be "very likely" to take action. Potential action that was listed in
the survey's questionnaire included speaking out at a PTA meeting or calling a
school official. This aspect of the
survey was very telling because it indicates that parents are willing to take
affirmative steps to protect the digital privacy of their children.
During
the past year, parents across the United States have gone from indicating in
surveys that they would be likely to take action to protect the digital privacy
rights of their children to taking affirmative steps to stop practices they
believe harm the digital privacy and safety of their children. For example, parents in Delaware,
California,
New Jersey, and Michigan have worked to ban schools from being able to request
or require students provide access to their personal digital accounts so
schools may track their students' personal digital activities.
Parents
and public school students in Texas
have protested against being required to wear school identification badges embedded
with RFID chips that digitally track their movements while at school. In Maryland,
parents' outrage over schools that were utilizing palm scanners to obtain biometric
data from students to pay for school lunches and potentially track the eating habits
of students recently led to the termination
of the program. The bottom line is
that parents are willing to openly protest and take legal action against practices
they believe may be putting their children in harm's way.
When
parents are provided the tools and opportunity to make informed decisions they act to protect the data privacy and safety of their children. The findings of this Brunswick
Insight survey indicate that more information and transparency is needed so
parents may be able to learn more about these issues so they can take the
appropriate steps necessary to protect their children's digital privacy and security.
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.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Michigan Bans NCAA Schools From Cyberstalking Student-Athletes
Michigan has joined the growing list of states that have banned schools from requiring their student-athletes to register and/or provide access to their personal email/social media credentials and content. Michigan joins Delaware, California, and New Jersey in banning NCAA schools from requiring their students to verify their personal digital accounts in order to apply or attend school, keep their scholarships, or participate in intercollegiate athletics.
Michigan's legislation is the most comprehensive in the country because it also bans elementary, middle, and high schools from also requiring their students to turn over their personal digital account information. In a nutshell, the new law generally bans all schools from requesting their students provide them access to their personal social media/digital media usernames, passwords and/or content. This policy affirms that the state of Michigan will not allow its schools to act like China who is requiring its citizens to register their personal digital accounts so the government may "monitor" everything their citizens do online.
Michigan's legislation may save Michigan schools tens of millions of dollars per year that may have been utilized to contract with companies that offer cyberstalking services to track the digital activities of students, their families, and friends. The companies that sell cyberstalking software to schools use terms like, "monitoring", "educating", and "leading" when describing their services, and/or companies. In addition, if you perform due diligence on the founders of the companies that offer these so called "monitoring" or "educating" services you may notice they have no verifiable professional credentials that demonstrate that any sports (college, amateur, or professional) organization should engage them for social media or education related services.
Some of these companies are also stating that they support social media privacy legislation which if true means they support a ban on their cyberstalking services. In order for any social media "monitoring" (cyberstalking) software to properly work it needs a student to verify his personal digital credentials. Absent student verification these services will not work.
Any public school that engages a firm to "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may in the near future receive a letter from their state's attorney general, the U.S. Department Education, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, or a law firm regarding their practices. Schools that "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may soon encounter steep fines, lawsuits, or a loss of education funding that may amount to tens of millions of dollars.
The bottom line is that public schools that engage self-described "social media experts"/"social media education & monitoring services"/"social media protectors of reputation" may create tremendous personal safety and privacy problems for their student-athletes, and massive legal liability issues for their institutions and taxpayers.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
(Full Disclosure: I advised Michigan Rep. Arc Nesbitt's office on HB 5523)
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Michigan's legislation is the most comprehensive in the country because it also bans elementary, middle, and high schools from also requiring their students to turn over their personal digital account information. In a nutshell, the new law generally bans all schools from requesting their students provide them access to their personal social media/digital media usernames, passwords and/or content. This policy affirms that the state of Michigan will not allow its schools to act like China who is requiring its citizens to register their personal digital accounts so the government may "monitor" everything their citizens do online.
Michigan's legislation may save Michigan schools tens of millions of dollars per year that may have been utilized to contract with companies that offer cyberstalking services to track the digital activities of students, their families, and friends. The companies that sell cyberstalking software to schools use terms like, "monitoring", "educating", and "leading" when describing their services, and/or companies. In addition, if you perform due diligence on the founders of the companies that offer these so called "monitoring" or "educating" services you may notice they have no verifiable professional credentials that demonstrate that any sports (college, amateur, or professional) organization should engage them for social media or education related services.
Some of these companies are also stating that they support social media privacy legislation which if true means they support a ban on their cyberstalking services. In order for any social media "monitoring" (cyberstalking) software to properly work it needs a student to verify his personal digital credentials. Absent student verification these services will not work.
Any public school that engages a firm to "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may in the near future receive a letter from their state's attorney general, the U.S. Department Education, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, or a law firm regarding their practices. Schools that "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may soon encounter steep fines, lawsuits, or a loss of education funding that may amount to tens of millions of dollars.
The bottom line is that public schools that engage self-described "social media experts"/"social media education & monitoring services"/"social media protectors of reputation" may create tremendous personal safety and privacy problems for their student-athletes, and massive legal liability issues for their institutions and taxpayers.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
(Full Disclosure: I advised Michigan Rep. Arc Nesbitt's office on HB 5523)
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)