UK: Social Media Domestic Abuse May Lead To 5 Years In Jail

In the United Kingdom, a new law has gone into effect that will enable prosecutors to go after domestic abuse perpetrators who harm their victims online.  Under this law, charges may be brought in domestic abuse matters where there is evidence of repeated controlling or coercive behavior.

Controlling or coercive behavior is defined as a continuing act or pattern of acts which are used to harm, punish, or frighten a victim.  Some examples of repeated controlling or coercive behavior may include: monitoring a person via online communication tools (i.e. tracking apps on mobile devices), or threatening to reveal or publish private information.

While its too early to speculate how this new law will be applied, it demonstrates that it is imperative to understand the legal consequences of your online interactions.  Controlling or coercive tweeting, snapping, pinning, or posting may lead to prison.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

The EU's Push For Stronger Privacy Laws and Safe Harbor

Last week, the European Union took a step closer to enacting stronger digital privacy laws that will make it more challenging for companies to re-purpose the data they are collecting from their customers.  These new data protections would harmonize the privacy laws across the 28 members of the EU and stiffen the potential fines for violators up to 4% of a violator's global revenue.

The European Parliament and individual member governments still must pass the new proposals so it not certain that this is a done deal.  After all of the approvals have been obtained, the law may become effective within two years.

In general, I am in favor of strong industry self-regulation.  Unfortunately, this has not worked as hoped in the digital space.  Some companies are collecting massive amounts of personal information about their users and then utilizing the data for opaque secondary uses (i.e. selling the content to data brokers, psychological experiments, etc...).  Because of these non-transparent abuses, EU lawmakers felt it was time to act to reign in these practices.

Some positive aspects of these reforms provide users the right to know why they are being profiled, how they are being labeled, who is using their personal data, etc... This type of transparency will lead to greater accountability and hopefully lead to some companies changing their troubling privacy policies and data usage practices.  While it may be wishful thinking, I am optimistic that these new laws will convince U.S. law makers and regulators to push for some of these much needed reforms because there is little transparency in the data collection and usage industry.  

This latest push for stronger EU privacy laws coincides with the negotiation for an updated Safe Harbor data transfer agreement which may soon replace the previous one that was invalidated earlier this year.  In our digital dependent economy, participants need to be able to transfer data between continents in a timely fashion. Therefore, I am cautiously optimistic that an updated Safe Harbor Agreement will be finalized early in the new year because in our interconnected world it is imperative for businesses to have legal certainty.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved. 

Homeland Security Will Vet Visa Applicants' Social Media

The Department of Homeland Security will soon expand its vetting of visa applicants to include social media.  This expansion appears to be in direct response to the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.  Surprisingly, there was a secret policy in place that banned officials from reviewing applicants' social media content.

If visa applicants urge their digital connections/followers to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and its allies online, it wouldn't surprise me if they would follow through with physical acts of violence if they are allowed to enter our country.  In response to these revelations about this secret policy to not review visa applicants' digital life lawmakers are demanding a change in policy. 

Will U.S. visa applications soon include requests for usernames/account names of all of one's social media accounts? Will applicants be required to provide access to their password protected accounts. Will increased scrutiny help make us safer? There are many unanswered questions as to how the actually vetting will occur.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved. 

EU Backs Down On Proposal To Raise Social Media Age Limit to 16

In the EU, there was a recent proposal to raise the age limit for children to access social media platforms to 16 years of age absent parental consent.  The idea behind the bill was to help better protect the personal privacy and safety of children.  Banning kids from being able to do something will only make them more interested in subject.  As a parent, I witness this phenomena every single day.

After much deliberation, the EU decided against raising the age limit for social media access to 16 years of age absent parental consent.  EU member states will be free to set their own age restrictions between 13 and 16 years of age.  The debate surrounding this issue was extremely interesting because it demonstrates that law makers around the world are beginning to better understand the issues surrounding unfettered data collection and usage. 

Its importance to have robust conversations on data protection and personal safety issues. Every day, our world is becoming more complex as more personal data is being generated and utilized in ways previously never envisioned so there is a need for these types of continuing conversations.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.  

E.P.A.'s Secret Social Media Campaign Violated The Law

According to The New York Times, the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) engaged in an illegal covert social media campaign to back an Obama administration rule that was intended to to increase protections for our country's streams and waters according to the Government Accountability Office (G.A.O.).

The E.P.A. disputed the G.A.O.'s findings and an official with the agency stated, "[w]e use social media tools just like all organizations to stay connected and inform people across the country about our activities...[a]t no point did the E.P.A encourage the public to contact Congress or any state legislature."

Under the law, federal agencies may not participate in lobbying. The G.A.O. stated that the E.P.A. violated the federal Anti-deficiency Act which prohibits federal agencies from spending money without authorization.  Violating this act may lead to fines and/or jail time.  While its highly unlikely that anyone will be fined or sent to jail for these activities this should serve as a wake up call to government agencies because utilizing social media for illegal activities may create tremendous legal issues that can lead to fines and/or imprisonment.   

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Wyndam Settles FTC Data Security Charges

The FTC announced earlier today that Wyndham Hotels and Resorts has agreed to settle charges that the company’s security practices unfairly exposed the payment card information of hundreds of thousands of consumers to hackers in three separate data breaches.  The settlement requires Wyndham to establish a comprehensive information security program designed to protect cardholder data and to conduct annual information security audits and maintain safeguards in connections to its franchisees’ servers.

This settlement demonstrates that the FTC will go after companies that it believe do not have the proper data privacy and security protocols in place. Companies must be careful when determining what type of data they collect from their customers, how they will safeguard the information, and how long they utilize the information. In conjunction with a data collection and usage program it is imperative to have robust privacy and security audits.

The bottom line is that companies should bake privacy and security into their customer data collection and usage programs or they risk millions of dollars in potential legal liability.

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

  

Canadian Cable Company Facebook Shames Late Paying Customers

There is a valid reason why people are "cutting the cord" and getting rid of their cable subscriptions.  Some cable companies don't have a clue about customer service.  In a very troubling report, Canadian cable company Senga Services has been publicly shaming on Facebook its customers who are in arrears.

Senga Services' behavior was deemed so troubling that Canada's Office of the Privacy Commissioner asked the company to delete its customer shaming Facebook posts.  Do any of the publicly shamed customers have potential legal claims under Canadian law?  What if some of the customers that Senga publicly shamed had a bona fide billing dispute that Senga refused to addressed?  What if some customers were not properly notified of the billing issue due to a move?

Earlier this year, I switched my cable company because I had a major billing dispute.  My now former cable company had lied to me for years and over charged me hundreds of dollars.  Only after I wrote multiple letters to the company and threatened to file FTC and state attorney general complaints was I finally refunded several hundred dollars.

My matter was most likely only settled by the cable company because I am an attorney who has the knowledge and means to easily utilize the proper judicial or regulatory process to obtain the money I was owed.  Most people don't have this luxury.

Companies should tread very carefully when utilizing social media to reach their goals.  Too often organizations empower employees and/or agents to act on their behalf online who don't understand that their digital actions may have legal repercussions.  The bottom line is that its imperative to think before you post.

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Mattel, Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Hackable Barbie

Barbie has been an All-American favorite since its introduction in 1959.  She has played a starring role in our popular culture for years; so much so that some girls have gone to great lengths to try to look like her.  The bottom line is that Barbie has become a mainstay in many homes.

For this holiday season, Mattel, the maker of Barbie created a version called "Hello Barbie" that is going to be able to be connected to the Internet.  Some privacy advocates such as the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood are very troubled by this new Barbie and have created a social media campaign called #HellNoBarbie because they have some major concerns about how the data being collected will be utilized.

A major problem with Hello Barbie is that parents may not always know when a particular conversation is being recorded by the doll and sent to Mattel's third party technology vendor. Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum pointed out to NBC News that the recordings could be utilized in divorce cases and custody battles.

Another issue is cybersecurity. Earlier today, it was reported that Hello Barbie has major privacy and security flaws that could expose the personal privacy and safety of our children. This is a very troubling report. Why didn't Mattel bake privacy and cybersecurity into the design of this toy?  Mattel isn't the only toy maker to have overlooked privacy and cybersecurity issues. VTech, a provider of electronic toys for children was recently hacked and exposed the personal information of millions of children.

The bottom line is that we are entering the era of the "Internet of Toys" where manufacturers may soon start trying to one up each other with how their products are connected online.  The problem is that is appears that many of the privacy and cybersecurity issues that are paramount to protecting the safety our of kids have not been made a priority in this rush for greater profits.

As a parent, I don't want or need my kids toys connected to the Internet. iPhones and Xboxes are meant to be connected online but Barbie, Ken, and GI Joe are not.  Parents must be able to easily control what is recorded about their family in the privacy of their home.  What happened to just being able to play with your kids and having a personal moment that is not shared with the whole world for eternity?

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Email Privacy Act: Much Needed Reform

In general, the government should be required to obtain a warrant in order to access the private password protected digital accounts of its citizens.  Unfortunately, due to an outdated law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) this is not the case.

The ubiquitous nature of online communications has made updating the law to account for how technology has changed over the past 30 years a necessity to ensure that our 4th amendment rights in the virtual world equal our 4th amendment rights in the physical world.  A Congressional hearing on the Email Privacy Act will be held this week to try to update the woefully out of date ECPA statute.  Multiple efforts over the years have failed so I am cautiously optimistic that this effort and others such as the LEADS Act which complement this bill will be passed this term.

The Email Privacy Act has more than 300 cosponsors in the House of Representatives and it would close a glaring loophole in ECPA which enables the government to utilize a subpoena instead of a warrant to require digital service providers to provide their customer's digital communications if they are greater than 180 days old.  When ECPA was enacted in 1986, this loophole wasn't concerning because our technology wasn't such that we could hold years of personal communications in an email account stored in the cloud around the world.

According to a recent poll by Vox Populi, 77% of 1000 registered voters said "a warrant should be required to access emails, photos and other private communications stored online." This super majority demonstrates the importance of this issue and that Congress should listen to the voters to rectify this glaring hole in our 4th amendment protections.

In order for the Email Privacy Act to became law, it is imperative to contact your local members of Congress to tell them about the importance of this issue.  Absent public support, Congress doesn't act. Therefore, if you believe that our 4th amendment protections should extend to our digital activities please take a stand and urge your representatives and senators to support the much needed Email Privacy Act.

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Towson University Locker Room Recording Scandal May Cost Millions

The Washington Post, has reported that a Towson University diving coach was indicted on criminal charges by a grand jury for allegedly utilizing a cell phone to tape record student-athletes inside of a women's locker room on campus.  According to Baltimore County Circuit records, Maureen Mead who is married to Pat Mead who is the head coach of the women's diving team has been charged with Interception of Communication, Peeping Tom, and Altering Physical Evidence.

These are serious crimes and its possible that after the facts have been uncovered that federal charges may be forthcoming.  It wouldn't surprise me if Towson University is sued for millions of dollars by the student-athletes who were recorded.  Last year, Johns Hopkins Hospital settled a lawsuit for $190 million dollars where a doctor had illegally tape recorded his patients.

How many other times did Maureen Mead tape record student-athletes in the locker room? Why were the recordings created in the first place?  How were these recordings re-purposed? There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered.  The bottom line is that it may be prudent for Towson University to set aside several million dollars to investigate and resolve this matter.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Emoji (and the law): The Oxford Dictionary Word of The Year

The Oxford Dictionaries have chosen "emoji" as the word of the year.  According to the Oxford University Press, the use of the word "emoji" has increased "hugely" this year so it was natural for it to become the word of the year.

An emoji or emoticon is a digital icon or image that may be used during electronic interactions to convey an idea or feeling. Utilizing emojis in text messages may be useful because they express a feeling or idea more quickly than a group of words. 

Emojis or emoticons have been slowly showing up in court over the past couple of years. There have been some cases where emojis have been introduced into evidence during trial. As more people utilize these images to convey thoughts or ideas the more these issues will need to be addressed by the judicial system.  

The bottom line is that before sending an emoji in a message or posting it online make sure you understand the legal ramifications.  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Belgian Court Says Facebook Must Stop Tracking Non-Users

In a very promising development, a Belgian court has ruled that Facebook may no longer collect information about non-users. According to The New York Times, the court ruled that Facebook may no longer collect and store digital information from Belgians who do not have a Facebook account due to a lack of consent.

Facebook will appeal the ruling because it wants the right to track everyone on the Internet for monetary purposes.  However, if Facebook loses and fails to abide by the court's decision it may be fined up to $270,000 per day.

I do not trust Facebook with my personal information. Even though I have a personal Facebook account, my profile photo shows my "favorite social media titan," and I have intentionally included incorrect personal information about myself.  I do not utilize the platform to share my personal thoughts or activities because the data is sent to data brokers.  Furthermore, Facebook is not transparent regarding how personal user information is utilized by its business partners.

Its too early to speculate on whether Facebook will ultimately win the case; however, my hope is that other countries around the world including the U.S. require Facebook, Google, etc... to become more transparent about their data collection and utilization practices. Those who do not use Facebook have an expectation that it will not destroy non-users' privacy. We may soon find out if the Belgian judiciary agrees.

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Declines Cell Phone Privacy Case

Earlier today, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case regarding whether law enforcement needs a warrant to access the location information of cell phone users.  While the decision to turn down the case may disappoint some privacy advocates it is not surprising.

Earlier this year in Davis v. U.S., the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that it was not necessary for the police to obtain a warrant before accessing cell phone location records.  The defendant was convicted of armed robbery based in part by his cell phone location data. The appeals court opinion compared cell phone location data to security camera surveillance images (page 27 of the opinion) which is an interesting analogy.

In general, absent exigent circumstances (legal jargon for an emergency), a warrant should be required to access the content and meta data associated with one's digital devices.  In the physical world, law enforcement is generally required to obtain a warrant to search one's home or car.  A home or car may contain physical information (i.e. clothing, hard copy paper records, etc...) that may indicate an investigatory target's location history or other relevant data.

Since a warrant is generally required for physical world evidence, a warrant should generally be required for digital world evidence including location information, meta data, etc...I am hoping that the court declined this matter because it is waiting for a test case that will more easily enable them to strengthen our privacy laws.

This denial of cert demonstrates that it is imperative for the privacy community to increase its efforts to better educate the judiciary, state and federal lawmakers, and other stakeholders about digital privacy issues.

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Stevenson University Caught Requiring Access To Private Student Facebook Accounts

Playing college athletics is a privilege and not a right. However, student-athletes do not lose their civil rights when they enter the locker room.  In an insightful and troubling ESPN Outside the Lines Report, it was uncovered that a now former student-athlete at Stevenson University was forced to quit her school's athletic team because she refused to abide by an illegal and discriminatory social media policy. The policy required the women's ice hockey student-athletes to provide their coaches access to their personal social media accounts.

Requiring students to provide coaches and administrators access to personal digital accounts is not just a privacy issue but also a personal safety, cyber security, and civil rights matter.  Does a coach have a legal right to demand to see what political candidate a student-athlete supports?  Does a college administrator have a legal right to see if a student-athlete likes a page that may indicate their sexual preference?  Does a coach have a legal right to see all of your personal messages to your friends and family?  

Maryland was the first state in 2012 to enact legislation to generally ban employers from demanding access to personal social media accounts and it was also the first state to introduce legislation to protect students from being required to turn over the same information to schools. While Maryland was the first state to introduce legislation to protect personal student social media accounts it wasn't able to enact a state law on the matter until earlier this year when it became the 13th state to do so.  

While the student-athlete who was profiled by ESPN was harmed by Stevenson University's clearly unethical and illegal social media policy, it doesn't appear she has a claim under Maryland's new student social media privacy law that went into effect on June 1, 2015. However, she may have a claim under the 2012 employee social media privacy law if she worked in some type of capacity for the university. On the federal level, there may be potential Title IX, federal computer crime law (i.e. the Stored Communications Act), Office of Civil Rights claims, etc... If Stevenson University's illegal social media policy was in effect after June 1, 2015 the school may have additional legal challenges on the horizon.

The bar to settle this type of matter was set at $70,000 per student last year when a Minnesota student received this amount to settle a similar situation.  Since the student profiled in the ESPN piece appears to have been clearly harmed by her university's illegal policy her damages may be significantly higher than $70,000. Every student who was told they must provide access to their personal social media account to participate in a school sponsored activity may also be entitled to at least $70,000.

There appears to be approximately 24 students on the Stevenson University Women's ice hockey team this year.  If 24 students participated on last year's team and they were required to provide access to their personal social media accounts, Stevenson University may be on the hook to compensate each student-athlete at least $70,000.  For example, 24*$70,000=$1,680,000 in potential damages just for last year's team.

If last year's social media policy was in effect this year that could cause additional trouble for Stevenson. While the new Maryland law caps state damages at $1,000 per student plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs, this law doesn't affect potential damages under federal law. If the student-athletes band together and obtain joint legal representation they may be able to file a class action lawsuit and the total damages against the university could theoretically reach $2,000,000+.  

Stevenson needs to become transparent about this matter and held accountable.  How long has their illegal and discriminatory social media policy be in effect?  How many students were required to abide by this policy?  Did the policy just apply to female ice hockey players?  If not, who else. These are just some of the many questions that Stevenson must answer.

The bottom line is that universities need to better understand the legal ramifications of their social media policies and engage those who actually understand best practices. The legal issues involved are very serious and trump the personal/university branding issues that many schools focus on.

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

UK Police May Soon Have Power To View All Users Web History

Privacy is something you don't know you have until you lose it.  Unfortunately, the Internet has gone from the world's greatest communication and knowledge spreading platform to the best surveillance tool ever invented.

According to The Independent, UK police may soon be granted the power to view the web browsing history of everyone in the country.   The alleged bill would require communication companies to retain all web browsing history of its customers for 12 months in case the police or spy agencies want access.  The article claims that the police will still need to go through some type of judicial process to obtain the data.

A user's Internet search history may be very useful for law enforcement.  For example, in the United States, it appears that in the infamous disappearance of Caylee Anthony the police may have forgotten to check all of the Internet browsing history of a computer that was searched.  If all of the browsing history of the computer that was checked was readily accessible in one dashboard would it have changed the outcome of the case?

This potential new UK law is very troubling.  Will phone companies soon be required to tape record every phone call that is made?  Will people soon be required to tape record every personal voice conversation and keep a physical copy of every pen and paper interaction they have?  Will librarians soon be required to track every request by every user and keep it on file for 12 months?

The potential for abuse is tremendous.  Will one be prosecuted for just doing an Internet search about a topic?  Who will have access to it?  Will the proper cyber security and privacy safeguards be implemented to protect the data?  What happens when multiple people utilize a device?  Will everyone eventually be forced to have their own Internet ID # to track everything they do online? How much compensation will one be able to obtain after their browsing history is illegally leaked to the media?   These are just some of the many questions that need to be answered.    

Unfortunately, it sounds as though George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four surveillance society is coming true in the U.K.  Which country will be next?  

Copyright 2015 by The Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.