privacy – Social Media Legality

Can Social Media Be Regulated?

In 1996 Congress passed what is known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which provides immunity to website publishers for third-party content posted on their websites. The CDA holds that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This Act passed in 1996, was created in a different time and era, one that could hardly envision how fast the internet would grow in the coming years. In 1996, social media for instance consisted of a little-known social media website called Bolt, the idea of a global world wide web, was still very much in its infancy. The internet was still largely based on dial-up technology, and the government was looking to expand the reach of the internet. This Act is what laid the foundation for the explosion of Social Media, E-commerce, and a society that has grown tethered to the internet.

The advent of Smart-Phones in the late 2000s, coupled with the CDA, set the stage for a society that is constantly tethered to the internet and has allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon to carve out niches within our now globally integrated society. Facebook alone in the 2nd quarter of 2021 has averaged over 1.9 billion daily users.

Recent studs conducted by the Pew Research Center show that “[m]ore than eight in ten Americans get news from digital services”

While older members of society still rely on news media online, the younger generation, namely those 18-29 years of age, receive their news via social media.

The role Social Media plays in the lives of the younger generation needs to be recognized. Social Media has grown at a far greater rate than anyone could imagine. Currently, Social Media operates under its modus operandi, completely free of government interference due to its classification as a private entity, and its protection under Section 230.

Throughout the 20th century when Television News Media dominated the scenes, laws were put into effect to ensure that television and radio broadcasters would be monitored by both the courts and government regulatory commissions. For example, “[t]o maintain a license, stations are required to meet a number of criteria. The equal-time rule, for instance, states that registered candidates running for office must be given equal opportunities for airtime and advertisements at non-cable television and radio stations beginning forty-five days before a primary election and sixty days before a general election.”

What these laws and regulations were put in place for was to ensure that the public interest in broadcasting was protected. To give substance to the public interest standard, Congress has from time to time enacted requirements for what constitutes the public interest in broadcasting. But Congress also gave the FCC broad discretion to formulate and revise the meaning of broadcasters’ public interest obligations as circumstances changed.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority is constrained by the first amendment but acts as an intermediary that can intervene to correct perceived inadequacies in overall industry performance, but it cannot trample on the broad editorial discretion of licensees. The Supreme Court has continuously upheld the public trustee model of broadcast regulation as constitutional. The criticisms of regulating social media center on the notion that they are purely private entities that do not fall under the purviews of the government, and yet these same issues are what presented themselves in the precedent-setting case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969. In this case, the court held that “rights of the listeners to information should prevail over those of the broadcasters.” The Court’s holding centered on the public right to information over the rights of a broadcast company to choose what it will share, this is exactly what is at issue today when we look at companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat censuring political figures who post views that they feel may be inciteful of anger or violence.

In essence, what these organizations are doing is keeping information and views from the attention of the present-day viewer. The vessel for the information has changed, it is no longer found in television or radio but primarily through social media. Currently, television and broadcast media are restricted by Section 315(a) of the Communications Act and Section 73.1941 of the Commission’s rules which “require that if a station allows a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use its facilities (i.e., make a positive identifiable appearance on the air for at least four seconds), it must give equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to also use the station.” This is a restriction that is nowhere to be found for Social Media organizations.

This is not meant to argue for one side or the other but merely to point out that there is a political discourse being stifled by these social media entities, that have shrouded themselves in the veils of a private entity. However, what these companies fail to mention is just how political they truly are. For instance, Facebook proclaims itself to be an unbiased source for all parties, and yet what it fails to mention is that currently, Facebook employs one of the largest lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. Four Facebooks lobbyist have worked directly in the office of House Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi herself has a very direct connection to Facebook, she and her husband own between $550,000 to over $1,000,000 in Facebook stock. None of this is illegal, however, it raises the question of just how unbiased is Facebook.

If the largest source of news for the coming generation is not television, radio, or news publications themselves, but rather Social Media such as Facebook, then how much power should they be allowed to wield without there being some form of regulation? The question being presented here is not a new one, but rather the same question asked in 1969, simply phrased differently. How much information is a citizen entitled to, and at what point does access to that information outweigh the rights of the organization to exercise its editorial discretion? I believe that the answer to that question is the same now as it was in 1969 and that the government ought to take steps similar to those taken with radio and television. What this looks like is ensuring that through Social Media, that the public has access to a significant amount of information on public issues so that its members can make rational political decisions. At the end of that day that it was at stake, the public’s ability to make rational political decisions.

These large Social Media conglomerates such as Facebook and Twitter have long outgrown their place as a private entity, they have grown into a public medium that has tethered itself to the realities of billions of people. Certain aspects of it need to be regulated, mainly those that interfere with the Public Interest, there are ways to regulate this without interfering with the overall First Amendment right of Free Speech for all Americans. Where however Social Media blends being a private forum for all people to express their ideas under firmly stated “terms and conditions”, and being an entity that strays into the political field whether it be by censoring heads of state, or by hiring over $50,000,000 worth of lobbyist in Washington D.C, there need to be some regulations put into place that draw the line that ensures the public still maintains the ability to make rational political decisions. Rational decisions that are not influenced by anyone organization. The time to address this issue is now when there is still a middle ground on how people receive their news and formulate opinions.

Are Judges’ Safety at Risk? The Increase in Personal Threats Prompts the Introduction of the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act

When a judge renders a legal decision, they hardly anticipate that their commitment to serving the public could make themselves or their family a target for violence. Rather than undergo the appeals process when an unfavorable verdict is reached, disgruntled civilians are threatening and even attacking the presiding judges and their families – placing them in fear of their lives.

Earlier this month, the federal judiciary introduced legislation which aims to safeguard the personal information of judges and their immediate family members within federal databases and restrict data aggregators from reselling that information. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts announced their support for the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021, named for the late son of Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The bill comes in response to the tragedy that occurred on July 19, 2020, when an angered attorney disguised as a FedEx delivery driver showed up at the Salas’ home and opened fire. In attempting to assassinate Salas, the gunman shot and killed her 20-year-old son, Daniel, and wounded her husband, attorney Mark A. Anderl. A day after the racially motivated attack, the gunman, Roy Den Hollander, was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The Manhattan attorney and self-proclaimed “anti-feminist” appeared in Salas’ courtroom months prior to the attack. According to the FBI, Hollander had detailed information on Salas and her family, in addition to several other targets on his radar. An autobiography published to Hollander’s personal website revealed anti-feminist ideology and his extreme displeasure with Salas, including the following posts:

“If she ruled draft registration unconstitutional, the Feminists who believed females deserved preferential treatment would criticize her. If she ruled that it did not violate the Constitution, then those Feminists who advocate for equal treatment would criticize her. Either way it was lose-lose for Salas unless someone took the risk of leading the way”
“Female judges didn’t bother me as long as they were middle age or older black ladies…Latinas, however, were usually a problem — driven by an inferiority complex.”
In another passage, he wrote that Salas was a “lazy and incompetent Latina judge appointed by Obama.”
He criticized Salas’ resume, writing that “affirmative action got her into and through college and law school,” and that her one accomplishment was “high school cheerleader.”

(https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/suspect-deadly-shooting-called-federal-judge-esther-salas-71901734)

In a news video two-weeks after the incident, Salas shared that “unfortunately, for my family, the threat was real, and the free flow of information from the internet allowed this sick and depraved human being to find all our personal information and target us. In my case, the monster knew where I lived and what church we attended and had a complete dossier on me and my family.” Since her sons’ killing, Judge Salas has been personally advocating for stronger protections to ensure that judges are able to render decisions without fear of reprisal or retribution – not only for safety purposes, but because our democracy depends on an independent judiciary.

***

Sadly, Judge Salas is not alone in the terrible misfortune that occurred last year. Judges are regularly threatened and harassed, specifically after high-profile legal battles with increased media attention – increasing 400% over the past five years. Four federal judges have been murdered since 1979. District Judge John Wood was assassinated outside his home in 1979 by hitman Charles Harrelson. In 1988, U.S. District Judge Richard Daronco was shot and killed in the front yard of his Pelham, New York, home. In 1989, Circuit Judge Robert Vance was killed when he opened a mail bomb sent to his home. District Judge John Roll was shot in the back and killed in 2011 at an event for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was also shot and injured. (https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal-judiciary-supports-legislation-to-prevent-access-to-judges-information)

Thankfully, not all threats result in successful or fatal attacks – but the rise of intimidation tactics and inappropriate communications with federal judges and other court personnel has quadrupled since 2015.

U.S. District Judge Julie Kocurek was shot in front of her family in 2015. She miraculously survived but sustained severe injuries and underwent dozens of surgeries. The attempted assassin was a plaintiff before her court and had been tracking the judges’ whereabouts. Former Texas Federal Judge Liz Lang Miers attributes the attacks to someone misperceiving a ruling and acting irrationally “as opposed to understanding the justice system.”

In 2017, Seattle federal Judge James Robart received more than 42,000 letters, emails and calls, including more than 100 death threats, after he temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s travel ban that barred people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the U.S. for 90 days. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/attack-judge-salas-family-highlights-concerns-over-judicial-safety-n1234476)

The Internet, notably social media, has amplified the criticisms that citizens have with the judicial system. Rather than listening to and comprehending the entirety of a court ruling, an individual can fire off a tweet or post at the click of a button, spreading that inaccurate information worldwide. Before long, hundreds of thousands of people have seen that communication and are quick to draw conclusions despite not understanding the merits of the legal opinion. Misinformation, or misleading information or arguments, often aiming to influence a subset of the public, spreads rapidly. Data indicates that articles containing misinformation were among the most viral content, with “falsehoods diffusing significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth in all categories of information.” (https://voxeu.org/article/misinformation-social-media).

***

Since 1789, federal judges have been entitled to home and court security systems and protections by the U.S. Marshals service – however the threats and attacks continue to prevail.

As elected public servants, judges’ information is made publicly available and easily accessible through a simple Google search. The Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act would shield the information of federal judges and their families, including home addresses, Social Security numbers, contact information, tax records, marital and birth records, vehicle information, photos of their vehicle and home, and the name of the schools and employers of immediate family members.

Many officials are onboard with the proposed legislation. Senator Menendez, who recommended Judge Salas to President Barack Obama for appointment to the federal bench, reveals that “the threats against our federal judiciary are real and they are on the rise. We must give the U.S. Marshals and other agencies charged with guarding our courts the resources and tools they need to protect our judges and their families. I made a personal commitment to Judge Salas that I would put forth legislation to better protect the men and women who sit on our federal judiciary, to ensure their independence in the face of increased personal threats on judges and help prevent this unthinkable tragedy from ever happening again to anyone else.” Moreover, Rep. Fitzpatrick noted that, “in order to bolster our ability to protect our federal judges and their families, we need to safeguard the personally identifiable information of our judges and optimize our nation’s personal data sharing and privacy practices.”

Additionally, the bill is supported by the New Jersey State Bar Association, National Association of Attorneys General, Judicial Conference of the United States, Federal Magistrate Judges Association, American Bar Association (ABA), Dominican Bar Association, New York Intellectual Property Law Association, Federal Bar Council, Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA), and Federal Judges Association.

***

In memory of Daniel Anderl, taken too soon at 20-years-young. As the only child of U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas and defense attorney Mark Anderl, Daniel gave his life to save his parents. He was a student at Catholic University in Washington, DC. There is a plaque honoring Daniel at the entrance of the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University, as he planned to pursue a career in law. The plaque is also to serve as a reminder to young people that

Blurred Boundaries: The multidimensional convergence of Social Media’s Impact on Privacy, Speech and Employment Law

Are employees and employers operating in a universe without realizing the density of the fog that obscures the boundaries of the employee-employer relationship in cyberspace because the Supreme Court prefers to decide cases on narrower grounds?

Due to narrow rulings, examining decisions beyond employment law may yield analysis that can serve as temporary guideposts for employers and employees while monitoring the developing landscape.

Over a decade ago, the unanimous Supreme Court did just that. In City of Ontario, Cal. v. Quon, the Court avoided addressing the employee privacy issue by deciding that employer acted reasonably, thereby justified their non-investigatory search of an employer-issued pager in 2002. The employee brought an action for deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The § 1983 claim requires a governmental actor to deprive a constitutional right while acting under the color of law. The government, as the employer, issued a policy covering emails and Internet usage, but it was not specific to text messages. However, a supervisor verbally put all employees on notice that text would be considered emails, despite the difference between the technology used during transmission. Some of the non-work-related messages sent during working hours were sexual. Despite both the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the employee had an expectation of privacy in the text messages, the Supreme Court avoided addressing that issue while finding the search constitutional.

Since most of today’s labor force has never carried a pager, the more relevant aspect of this decision is the Court forecasting the “rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission” which may be evident “in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior.” How right they were, I could not have predicted the explosion of technology. Because emerging technology’s role in society was unclear, detailing the constitutionality of other actions could have been risky. Last month this preference was reinforced. However, definitive holdings could have become the foundation upon which employers and employees could make educated decisions while technology’s role in society becomes more evident. Like an airplane flying out of cloud cover, suddenly the landscape becomes visible.

The Court had the foresight that cell phone communications would become essential in self-expression that it would require employers to communicate clear policies. However, the challenge lies in setting clear policies when privacy and protected speech boundaries are not clearly defined but obscured in the fog created by balancing tests established in other speech cases.

One such landmark ruling is the 1969 “school arm-band case” during the Vietnam War. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., the Court separately analyzed the time, place, and type of be¬havior/communication. Tinker’s substantial disruption analysis requires that the prohibition on speech needs to be due to something other than just the desire to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness.

The Court in Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. established that speech cannot be suppressed just because society finds the content offensive. Likewise, in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, the Court also found that the amendments to the constitution also applied to the government when performing non-criminal functions.
Likewise, the Court ruled in Treasury Employees v. Von Raab that not only did the Fourth Amendment apply to the government as an employer but that the issue of privacy applies to private-sector employees as well.

More recently, Justice Stevens addressed a public employee’s expectation of privacy in his concurring opinion in Quon. He highlighted the significant issue: there “lacks tidy distinctions between workplace and private activities.” Today’s social media and society’s view have further blurred the boundaries to the point of non-existence.

Just last month, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to establish bright lines that would have further clarified the legal landscape of social media. The rule could have applied to the employer-employee relationship. In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Court held that the school violated the student’s free speech rights because the school’s special interests did not overcome the student’s right to freedom of expression. The decision was based primarily on the time of the speech, the location from where B.L. made it, the content, and the target audience. The school’s interests also focused on preventing disruption in the facility.

Justice Alito, in his concurrence, explains that it is not prudent to establish a general First Amendment rule for off-premise student speech but rather to examine the analytical framework. While this approach serves the parties of this case and is of some value to other students, it is so narrowly tailored that it may have little precedence in other speech disputes.

Rather than a bright-line rule, the Court is building a boundary fence around the First Amendment one panel at a time. While the legal community functions within this ever-changing reality, society pays the burden until clarity is achieved.

The Court’s lesson from Mahanoy might be that regulations on student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns; school offi¬cials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory. That same caution may be prudent for both the private sector and public sector employers. Social media’s impact is not limited to situations where a person’s post impacts their employment. One example, among many, is Amy Cooper, the Central Park 911 caller, who was immediately fired for racism and later charged with filing a false police report. She has since filed a civil suit against her employer.

Unfortunately, the Court’s preference to dispose of cases narrowly while avoiding addressing all the possible issues creates tension between different interpretations until the Court adds the last panel completing the boundary fence around the First Amendment. Until then, we will have to consider how the courts will decide issues within the employment arena, such as the termination of Amy Cooper or any law enforcement officer firings due to social media posts.

Will the Courts find that employees, like students, do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression” at the workplace gate in the era of social media?

Has Social Media Become the Most Addictive Drug We Have Ever Seen?

Before we get started, I want you to take a few minutes and answer the following questions to yourself:

Do you spend a lot of time thinking about social media or planning to use social media?
Do you feel urges to use social media more and more?
Do you use social media to forget about personal problems?
Do you often try to reduce the use of social media without success?
Do you become restless or troubled if unable to use social media?
Do you use social media so much that it has had a negative impact on your job or studies?

How did you answer these questions? If you answered yes to more than three of these questions then according to the Addiction Center you may have or be developing a Social Media Addiction. Research has shown that there is an undeniable link between social media use, negative mental health, and low self-esteem. Negative emotional reactions are not only produced due to the social pressure of sharing things with others but also the comparison of material things and lifestyles that these sites promote.
On Instagram and Facebook, users see curated content – advertisements and posts that are specifically designed to appeal to you based on your interests. Individuals today unlike any other time in history are seeing how other people live, and how their lifestyles differ significantly from their own. This sense of self-worth is what is being used to curate information, children at a young age are being taught that if you are not a millionaire then you are not successful, and they are creating barometers of success based on invisible benchmarks, this is leading to an increase in suicide and depression among young adults.

Social Media has become a stimulant whose effects mimic that of someone addicted to gambling, and recreational drugs. It has been shown that retweets, likes, and shares from these sites affect the dopamine part of the brain that becomes associated with reward. “[I]t’s estimated that people talk about themselves around 30 to 40% of the time; however, social media is all about showing off one’s life and accomplishments, so people talk about themselves a staggering 80% of the time. When a person posts a picture and gets positive social feedback, it stimulates the brain to release dopamine, which again rewards that behavior and perpetuates the social media habit.” “Chasing the high”, is a common theme among individuals with addictive personalities, and when you see people on Social Media posting every aspect of their lives, from the meal they ate to their weekend getaway, and everything in between, that is what your chasing, but the high is the satisfaction of other people liking your post. We have all been there you post a picture or a moment of great importance in your life, and the likes and reactions start pouring in, the reaction you garner from that love, differs significantly from the reaction you get when there is no reaction. A recent Harvard study showed that “the act of disclosing information about oneself activates the same part of the brain that is associated with the sensation of pleasure, the same pleasure that we get from eating food, getting money or having even had sex.” Our brains have become to associate self-disclosure with being a rewarding experience. Ask yourself when was the last time you posted something about a family or friend who died, why was this moment of sadness worth sharing with the world? Researchers in this Harvard Study found that “when people got to share their thoughts with a friend or family member, there was a larger amount of activity in the reward region of their brain, and less of a reward sensation when they were told their thoughts would be kept private.”

“The social nature of our brains is biologically based,” said lead researcher Matthew Lieberman, Ph.D., a UCLA professor of psychology and psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences. This in itself helps you to understand where Social Media has gone to, it has evolved into a system that takes advantage of our biological makeup, “although Facebook might not have been designed with the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex in mind, the social network is very much in sync with how our brains are wired.” There is a reason when your mind is idling the first thing it wants to do is to check Social Media, Liberman one of the founders of the study of social cognitive neuroscience explains that “When I want to take a break from work, the brain network that comes on is the same network we use when we’re looking through our Facebook timeline and seeing what our friends are up to. . . That’s what our brain wants to do, especially when we take a break from work that requires other brain networks.”

This is a very real issue, that has very real consequences. The suicide rate for children and teens is rising. According to a September 2020 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the suicide rate for pediatric patients rose 57.4% from 2007 to 2018. It is the second-largest cause of death in children, falling short only of accidents. Teens in the U.S. who spend more than 3 hours a day on social media may be at a heightened risk for mental health issues, according to a 2019 study in JAMA Psychiatry. The study, which was adjusted for previous mental health diagnoses, concludes that while adolescents using social media more intensively have an increased risk of internalizing problems or reporting mental health concerns, more research is needed on “whether setting limits on daily social media use, increasing media literacy, and redesigning social media platforms are effective means of reducing the burden of mental health problems in this population.” Social Media has become a coping mechanism for some to deal with their stress, loneliness, or depression. We have all come into contact with someone who posts their entire life on social media, and more often than not we might brush it off, even make a crude joke, but in fact, this is someone who is hurting and looking for help in a place that does not offer any solitude.

I write about this to emphasize a very real, and dangerous issue that is growing worse every single day. For far too long Social Media have hidden behind a shield of immunity.

Section 230, a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields social media companies from liability for content posted by their users and allows them to remove lawful but objectionable posts. Section 230 states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230)

In 1996 when this Law was introduced and passed, the internet was still in its infancy, and no one at that time could have ever envisioned how big it would become. At this point, Social Media Corporations operate in an almost Omnipotent capacity. Creating their governing boards, and moderators to filter out negative information. However, while the focus is often on the information being put out by the users what gets ignored is how that same information gets directed to the consumer. You see Facebook, Snap Chat, Twitter, even YouTube, rely on the consumer commonly known as “influencers” to direct posts, and information to the consumer also known as the “User”, to direct advertisement and product placement. To accomplish their goals which at the end of the day is the same as anyone Corporation to create a profit, information is directed at a person that will keep their attention. At this point, there are little to no regulations, on how information is directed at an individual. For instance, the FCC has rules in place that “limits the number of time broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite providers can devote to advertisements during children’s programs.” however, there are no such rules when dealing with children, there is only one such case in which the FTC has levied any fines for directed content at Children. Yet this suit was based more on the notion that Google through their subsidiary YouTube “illegally collected personal information from children without their parents’ consent.” When dealing with an advertisement for children Google itself sets the parameters.

Social Media has grown too large for itself and has far outgrown its place as a private entity that cannot be regulated. The FCC was created in 1934 to replace the outdated Federal Radio Commission an outdated entity. Therefore, just as it was recognized in 1934 that technology calls for change, today we need to call on Congress to regulate Social Media, it is not too farfetched to say that our Children and our Children’s futures depend on this.

In my next blog, I will post how regulation on Social Media could look and explain in more detail how Social Media has grown too big for itself.

Facebook: Watching your every move since 2012

It finally happened. My mother joined Facebook. I’m not sure what the current population of planet earth is, but it’s probably around 1.28 billion. I know this because that’s how many people are currently using Facebook[1].

A few years ago when the company went public, people started complaining about a perceived lack of privacy. Most people were concerned that the constantly evolving format created a need to always be aware that what you were posting would be directed to the appropriate audience. What many people hadn’t yet realized was that Facebook had begun mining information at an unprecedented rate.

Sign-in to Facebook today and notice that those shoes you just considered purchasing are now featured prominently on your news feed. That Google search you just performed has now caused advertisements to display alongside your profile. It almost seems like Mark Zuckerberg is stalking us. Taking their data-mining scheme to the next level, Facebook has gone on a spending spree. They recently purchased popular apps Instagram and Whatsapp. Those who use these apps have probably noticed that you can login to them using your Facebook information.

As the complaints have increased, Facebook has come up with a proposed solution – the “anonymous login.” What it will do is allow users to login to third-party apps without giving any personal information to that app. However, Facebook will still verify your identity, know what app you’ve signed in to, and they’ll know how often you sign in and how much time you spend on that app[2].

It seems that “anonymous” doesn’t really mean what we thought. Where should the data-mining line be drawn?

[1] http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource-how-many-people-use-the-top-social-media/3/

[2] http://mashable.com/2014/05/01/facebooks-anonymous-login-is-evil-genius/

Facebook After Death

Facebook has recently changed its privacy policy for deceased users’ accounts. Prior to this change, upon a friend or family member’s request, and upon confirmation that the user had actually passed away, Facebook would restrict the deceased user’s account so only “friends” could view the “memorial” page. In order to respect the choices a Facebook user makes while still alive, Facebook will now continue to apply, after the user’s death, the privacy settings the user chose while alive.

When I first read about this, I have to admit I thought it was a little creepy. I’m not sure that I would want my Facebook page to live on after I die, or if I would want random people to be able to look at a deceased family member or friend’s Facebook page. However, after surfing the Internet for more information about this, I came upon a Huffington Post blog that opened my eyes to the benefit of this new Facebook policy.

The author of the blog, Jordi Lippe, discussed how, after her father passed away tragically, she found herself visiting his Facebook page, posting on his wall, and tagging him in pictures more often than visiting his gravesite. Ms. Lippe didn’t find this to be creepy, as I had sensed it would be; rather, she looked at it as an opportunity to feel more connected to her father, to honor him, and to connect with all of the other people who missed and loved her father.

Various state legislatures are trying to figure out how to deal with digital assets. For example, Virginia enacted a law enabling parents of deceased minors to obtain control of their child’s various online accounts. After the parent assumes his or her child’s terms of service agreements, presumably, that parent can delete those accounts.

What are your thoughts? Is Facebook right in honoring a person’s privacy choices after he or she passes away? Should minors using Facebook receive the same treatment after death, or are parents justified in wanting to take control of their child’s digital assets, including deleting or deactivating those accounts? Would you want your Facebook page to be memorialized?

Facebook’s questionable expansion further into mobile.

How does a relatively unprofitable company of about 50 employees whose product is a blatant copy of another’s get acquired for 19 billion dollars in five years? The answer might not be entirely clear, but Facebook shareholders hope that CEO Mark Zuckerberg has a good idea after Facebook’s acquisition of mobile messaging app “WhatsApp” for $19 Billion. WhatsApp users also would like to know what this all means for the service they have deeply integrated into their lives.

WhatsApp had its start by offering a BlackBerry Messenger like experience for mobile devices other than BlackBerrys. What that means is that this kind of messaging service offers a much richer experience and allows for enhanced speed and security by utilizing internet data services as opposed to a traditional SMS text message. Today, WhatsApp has a user base of about 450 million monthly active users, with billions of messages being sent every day, and is growing at 1 million users a day. The company charges its users a dollar a year to use the service, making a profit nowhere near the $19 Billion purchase price by Facebook. Looking at Facebook’s current ad based revenue it enjoys through its other services it is not farfetched to suspect a change in the monetization strategy of WhatsApp. Despite these concerns WhatsApp CEO assures the Wall Street Journal that he believes WhatsApp “will stay completely independent and autonomous.”

These kinds of changes may concern the millions who use and trust WhatsApp especially with all of this happening on the heels of a report by Canadian and Dutch agencies having concerns over the privacy of users of WhatsApp due to violations of international privacy law. The report found that although WhatsApp had made some changes, the report still concluded that “The investigation revealed that WhatsApp was violating certain internationally accepted privacy principles, mainly in relation to the retention, safeguard, and disclosure of personal data.” Facebook has been no stranger to privacy concerns and controversy and users of WhatsApp will have to take all of this information into account when choosing what mobile messaging app they will like to use.

For now it is uncertain what changes, if any, will come to WhatsApp after this acquisition by Facebook. With more secure services like BlackBerry Messenger recently going cross-platform consumers will have to consider which companies they want to possibly have access to their conversations and personal information.

In the comments I would love to hear how you message friends (sms, imessage, bbm, whatsapp, kik, facebook messenger, etc) and why you use that service. Should we be concerned about the violation of privacy laws by some of these companies? What steps should be taken to protect consumers who utilize these services?

Social Media: Brand Builder or Mind Poison?

A recent interview on ESPN’s radio show Mike & Mike (you can find an article and podcast here) featured two prominent NCAA basketball coaches, John Calipari and Rick Pitino. On paper, these two coaches couldn’t be similar; age (only 6 years apart), coaches at powerhouse basketball schools (University of Kentucky and Louisville separated by only 75 miles), banners (three championships and 11 Final Four appearances between the two, although two of Calipari’s appearances have since been vacated) and the list could go on. While their knowledge and love for the game of basketball may be similar, their view on social media is vastly different.

Pitino referred to social media as a “poison” on his players and he bans them from using sites like Twitter while Calipari refers to social media as a brand builder and goes as far as to encourage his players to participate and use social media platforms. These opposite stances on social media couldn’t be a better illustration of why there is so much debate when it comes to the NCAA and its regulation of social media. You have some coaches prohibiting players from using social media and others promoting the use and regardless of the stance of its coaches, the schools continue to shell out the dough to monitor its players use of social media. If that isn’t a clear example of mixed signals then I don’t know what is.

Many schools, like UK and Louisville, spend tens of thousands of dollars to use monitoring software systems that flag certain keywords and content being used in a post or tweet. The athletes actually must agree to let the school monitor its social media use as a precondition to participate in their respective sports. Some legal scholars view this as a clear violation to the athletes’ First Amendment right to free speech and those views have gained traction as some states have prohibited schools from monitoring the social media accounts of its athletes. The NCAA has encouraged schools to monitor its student athletes on social media sites and in response we have state legislatures passing laws to ban the schools from doing so; another example of how far off we are from some type of amicable resolution.

People are entitled to their own opinions about social media, but we run into problems when those differing opinions lead to ambiguous regulations and policies. It’s hard to say which side has the better argument or if monitoring student-athlete social media accounts is warranted in the first place, but it’s clear that this issue is far from being resolved.

A Response to “Blurred Lines and the Right to Privacy”

In “Blurred Lines and the Right to Privacy”, Huffington Post writer Debbie Hines urges people to emotionally connect more with issues of online privacy violation. Ms. Hines boldly claims that the only way she believes action against online privacy violations will be taken is when we feel as emotionally violated in regards to online privacy as we would if someone were to break into our own homes—and she certainly seems to think we should, given that she states that “our online personal data by far out values any possessions in our homes.” She also invokes the Civil Rights movement as another example of a situation where serious action will only be taken when the public becomes emotionally involved. The author’s central inquiry is in regards to what will be the emotional stimulus that will ultimately move us in the direction to take action and protect against online privacy violations?

While I agree that online privacy is important in respect to information that is on the internet without your knowledge and consent, I have to disagree with the general tone of Ms. Hines article. To equate the emotional violation that is online privacy invasions to that of a person’s home being ransacked by burglars is slightly outrageous to me. Though I do not doubt that at least an equivalent amount of both financial and emotional harm could be achieved through both kinds of violations, the way we have been taught to view the internet makes this an incongruous comparison. The internet is premised on the notion of open access to information; it is a forum that we all utilize when seeking out any imaginable type of information. While it’s clear that the author is not referring to limiting this laissez-faire informational exchange, her opinions on such privacy violations seem to negate the general premise, purpose, and intent of the internet.

Furthermore, the expectation of privacy issue needs to be addressed. In our society, we are taught to view our activity on the internet through a distrustful lense. We are continually warned of the pitfalls that come from simply ignoring the privacy settings on social media accounts, let alone the far more damaging threats of identity theft, both in regards to our personal, professional, and financial lives. While I do believe that it would be nice to feel a sense of security on the internet, I just do not think that the public’s expectation of privacy on the internet is particularly high, nor should it be; and it is certainly not near the level of privacy expectation one would have in one’s own home. To feel as secure on the internet would be dangerously naïve, particularly in light of some of the egregious and highly publicized internet privacy violations that the author refers to.

So while I am in no way belittling Ms. Hines proposition, I think that until the internet is a truly safe place, it would be more prudent and practical to instead focus on taking defensive measures to protect ourselves and our online information.

Social Media Privacy v. Regulation

How much access should employers and schools have over their employees and students? Bill L.D. 1194, currently pending in the Maine legislature, would restrict employers access to employees social media accounts, as well as the accounts of elementary, high school, and college students. The bill was originally introduced in March 2013 but was carried over into 2014.

One potential problem with this bill lies in the financial industry. The Financial Industry Regulation Authority (FINRA), an oversight group that licenses brokers and regulates the securities industry, requires securities firms to oversee their employees business communications, specifically including social media accounts. If, for instance, a securities broker messaged a client on Twitter or solicited clients via LinkedIN, the securities firm would be obligated under FINRA’s directives to record that communication. The goal of this is to maintain a regulated financial industry where no “secret” communications or deals are being commenced.

A securities industry trade group, the Securities Industry Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), has filed a letter with the Maine legislature asking them to write an exception into the law for securities companies to comply with FINRA and other regulatory directives. They believe that many employees use a personal social media account for both personal AND business related goals and that the employers must have access to those accounts. Illinois enacted a similar law this past summer, with exceptions for the broker-dealer employers

This shows FINRA and the securities brokers take social media accounts seriously and showcase how they play a role in the securities trade. It is a thin line between privacy and 1^st amendment rights on one side, and the need to regulate an important industry in American economics. It is also interesting to note that without the exception, the law in Maine may create an unbalanced securities industry and force brokers to choose between following FINRA directives and state law.

In this case, I believe the employee’s privacy is not something that should be expected. If using social media, it makes sense to create a personal account and a business account. The employer, however, must trust the employee is not using their personal account for business purposes.

Source: Bloomberg Law: Securities

Tag: privacy

Facebook’s questionable expansion further into mobile.

Subscribe By Email