Three members of the House of Representatives have reintroduced the Social Network OnLine Protection Act last week. SNOPA would prohibit employers, potential employers, schools and school admissions officials from requiring employees and or students to provide social media passwords or other information used to access online accounts. SNOPA was first introduced last spring but dies when Congress adjourned at the end of 2012.
What were you doing December 27? While many people were pinning pictures on pintrest.com, perhaps of of New Year’s Eve Feasts or Dream Vacations for yet realized February Blizzards, Attorney Theodore F. Shroeder was filing a law suit in the Southern District of New York against Pintrest founder Brian Cohen for allegedly stealing his idea for what Cohen turned into Pintrest.com. The complaint reads like the Social Network screenplay. According to the complaint, while a Colombia Law School student, Shroeder developed the idea for pinning things of interest to a “board.” Shroeder subsequently brought on a few investors, Cohen being one of them. But according to the complaint, Cohen stalled Shroeder’s project and misappropriated the idea for his own use. Schroeder specifically alleges that Cohen “caused the project deadlock so that he could steal the core ideas for himself and freeze out the Plaintiff from reaping benefits.”
This sounds like one to watch.
Facebook is being sued, yet again. A Dutch company, Rembrandt Social Media, filed a suit on Febrauary 4, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia claiming that Facebook’s “Like” button and other features infringe on patents. Mr. Van Der Meer, a computer scientist, began working on his website “Surfbook” before his death in 2004. In 1998, Mr Van Der Meer was granted the patents. This was 5 years before Facebook appeared.
Is this the beginning of the end to Facebook’s “Like” button?
The past few days there have been a lot of interesting articles on Facebook. I thought this most recent one would be particularly important to all law students or any professional making sure job searching is not hindered by what is put on facebook. This article explains how to protect everything you have on facebook.
With all of the hoops one has to jump through to keep his private information private, it makes me wonder if Facebook is even worth it all. Here is an interesting article about how a lot of people have just given up on Facebook altogether because it is too much of a hassle to keep everything about their lives updated and private.
In light of these two articles, I think it is rather interesting how one father prohibits his daughter’s use of Facebook. For all of us that have grown up with Facebook usage being the norm, our first reaction is probably “how dare he do that? She has the right to have Facebook!!!” But when it comes down to all the hoops one has to go through to keep information about one’s personal life private, and the fact that many now conclude that the site isn’t even worth using, then maybe this over-protective father is doing his daughter a favor. I would greatly appreciate anybody’s thoughts on these.
Donald Trump is suing Bill Maher for breach of contract. Last month Maher made an announcement during the Jay Leno show that he would pay the charity of Trump’s choice $5 million if Trump released his birth certificate. Maher made the offer in response to Trump’s seemingly illogical calls for President O’Bama’s birth certificate, which he made as head of the so called birther movement. Trump, who in the court filings identifies himself as “a highly successful businessman, investor, and television personality” claims that Maher’s failure to honor the offer constitutes a breach. So what does social media have to do with the seemingly easy contracts case? In his complaint, Trump alleges that Maher “engaged in base insults, stating that Mr. Trump’s postings on the Twitter social networking service are the work of a “syphilitic monkey.” Not sure what these posts have to do with a contracts claim; the comments might be better suited for libel. Except there are a host of defenses for Maher on this one; truth, privilege, failure to cause special damages, absence of malice (after all, by his own admission, Trump is a public figure) Which one’s do you think would stick?
Lineberry v. Richards , E.D. Mich., No. 2:11-cv-13752-LPZ-MKM, 02/05/13
An RN was terminated upon her return from FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) leave for “dishonesty” when photos she posted on Facebook surfaced. She went on leave in the middle of winter, and posted photos of herself and her family vacationing in Mexico during that time. When she went on leave, her employer did know she had the vacation planned – and that she intended to use a wheelchair and was going to “take it easy.” Her physician indicated that the vacation would be more restful than her job, and would not interfere in her recovery. When she admitted to co-workers that she had not, in fact, used a wheelchair during her vacation (and admitted, apparently, that she lied to someone at the employer’s offices about having used a wheelchair), the company terminated her.
It sounded distinctly like the posting of photos during leave upset her co-workers, which prompted them to question her, which prompted her to lie (at least initially, and then admit lying). Maybe she would have been better off not posting at all. After all, it wasn’t the vacation itself that prompted her termination – it sounds like others felt she was “throwing it in their faces.” That Facebook Envy will get you every time…
Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis plead guilty today to terrorism charges stemming from his attempt to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank here in NY. Nafis’ attempt, if completed, could have caused serious damage. Fortunately for us, Nasfis realized early on that he could not complete his task alone and so he turned to Facebook to recruit fellow terrorists. Seems one of the Facebook friends he tried to recruit was a government informant who contacted officials. Another example of why friending “faux friends” isn’t necessarily a good idea.
Do you take pictures of your food at restaurants? Plan on taking a picture of your Valentine’s Day dinner? You might be banned from taking that picture this Valentine’s Day. This is because New York City restaurant owners are banning food photography by customers. The restaurant owners don’t want people posting pictures of their food on social media sites. Is this fair? Should the practice be banned? Read the CBS News story here, and comment on this post with your thoughts.
Social Media firms are now increasing their presence in the Middle East. The companies hope to capitalize on the recent popularity of social media in the region. They are asserting their presence via digital advertising. Digital advertising has traditionally not been used in the Middle East. According to The New York Times, print advertising, and television advertising, have been the main methods of advertising. It will interesting to follow whether digital advertising will take off in the Middle East. Click on this link to read The New York Times article about the topic.
The concept of legislatively limiting employer access to employee social media traffic is gaining traction. Legislators in Georgia, Montana and North Dakota are considering bills similar to the one already adopted by the Illinois legislature. The bills would restrict employers from researching social media sights as a means of gaining additional insights about employees and/or employee candidates. More information about the potential laws is available here.
Are these bills innovative or are they just a natural extension of the HR workplace rules that prohibit, say, asking a candidate is she is pregnant?