FTC Settlement Puts an End to “History Sniffing” by Online Advertising Network Charged With Deceptively Gathering Data on Consumers
You know the old adage, the Internet is forever. Well, so is your browsing history, apparently. On December 5, 2012, the FTC announced that an online advertising company agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it used “history sniffing” to secretly and illegally gather data from millions of consumers about their interest in sensitive medical and financial issues ranging from fertility and incontinence to debt relief and personal bankruptcy.
“Consumers searching the Internet shouldn’t have to worry about whether someone is going to go sniffing through the sensitive, personal details of their browsing history without their knowledge,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “This type of unscrupulous behavior undermines consumers’ confidence, and we won’t tolerate it.”
The defendant, Epic Marketplace shared information with a large advertising network that has a presence on 45,000 websites. Consumers who visited any of the network’s sites received a cookie, which stored information about their online practices including sites they visited and the ads they viewed. The cookies allowed Epic to serve consumers ads targeted to their interests, a practice known as online behavioral advertising.
Kids’ Data Still Collected, Shared without Parents’ Knowledge, Consent
The Federal Trade Commission issued a new staff report, “Mobile Apps for Kids: Disclosures Still Not Making the Grade,” [PDF here ] examining the privacy disclosures and practices of apps offered for children in the Google Play and Apple App stores. The report details the results of the FTC’s second survey of kids’ mobile apps.
The FTC first surveyed kids’ mobile apps in 2011. Since then there has been little progress toward giving parents the information they need to determine what data is being collected from their children, how it is being shared, or who will have access to it. Many any of the apps examined included interactive features, such as connecting to social media, and sent information from the mobile device to ad networks, analytics companies, or other third parties, without disclosing these practices to parents.
Disturbingly, the shared information included login information across multiple sites, GPs location information and device ID information.
By now most small business owners are aware that Cybersecurity is an issue. But, how much time and capital should be spent on cybersecurity protection? This article discusses three key factors that should play into that decision.
Factor #1 Awareness.
According to some experts, the biggest problem that small business owners face is simply awareness of the risk. This includes awareness by employees as well.
Most data leaks and other security incidents are caused by employees who are either unaware of security protocols or indifferent to them. Regardless of the level of security in your data center or the strength of encrypted communications, the weakest link will almost always be the human beings interacting with the network.
To address this risk, small business owners need to focus on training and awareness for employees. However, company management is usually focused on sales and customer service. Further, owners often lack the time and expertise needed to properly assess security risks. Companies in any industry should look to partner with a third-party security firm to asses risks and develop appropriate training.
Factor #2 Employee Training.
Training is the first line of defense against cyber threats. This training needs to include the entire company, and should cover three key areas: (a) proper password management on all company services and devices, including clear procedures for new and departing employees, as well as day-to-day usage; (b) clear guidelines for the sharing of information with remote employees, partners and third parties; and (c) a plan for monitoring usage and privileges to the company’s digital assets.
Employee training needs to account for how the public will access your company’s products or services. For example, what if a hacker got into a system by pretending to be another user? By rolling out new features slowly, its easier to identify and fix security loopholes.
All stakeholders need awareness of: (a) the type of information you’re transmitting (e.g. payment information), (b) the visibility of information you’re transmitting (e.g. highly-publicized public launch vs. a quiet rollout of some new software), and (c) the level of security inherent in the transmission (e.g. encrypted emails and documents shared via a secure server or data shared publicly through public networks and via social media sites.
Factor #3 Vigilance (Monitoring).
For some companies everything is available and accessed online. Since online relationships are built upon trust, it is critical that the company actively monitor the security and transparency of this relationship. Many tools are available to measure and respond to risk factors and gauge likelihood of an impact to help determine the level of investment required. Resources can be assigned to anything with high likelihood and high impact.
For example, monitoring potentially fraudulent user accounts has an immediate commercial benefit as well as reducing risk.
Unfortunately, a common misconception is that putting up basic defenses like firewalls will protect security vulnerabilities. However, after reinforcing your Cybersecurity defense, the focus should shift to monitoring and alerting. In many cases, this may require up-front investments to enable tracking and alerting to irregularities in network and data activity. Fortunately, in the event of a breach or a loss of data, this monitoring information will be the key factor in addressing the problem and pinpointing the issue. Managers, employees and business partners need to understand that Cybersecurity is an ongoing process. Awareness, training and monitoring will go a long way toward enhancing a small business’ Cybersecurity preparedness.
About the Author:
David M. Adler, Esq. is a partner in the Chicago office of Leavens, Strand, Glover & Adler, LLC, a boutique intellectual property and entertainment law firm in Chicago, Illinois whose mission is providing businesses with a competitive advantage by enabling them to leverage their intangible assets and creative content in order to drive innovation and increase overall business value. The practice is organized around five major substantive areas of law: Intellectual Property Law, Commercial & Finance Law, Entertainment & Media Law, Corporate Law and Contract Law.
Contact us for a free consultation today. Dadler @ lsglegal (dot) com or (866) 734 2568
In today’s business world, web sites are no longer simply a static online presence. Today’s web sites are highly interactive and often make use of content (photos, text, images, videos, etc.) that have bee uploaded by visitors and registered users. With the speed of search engines, social networking platforms and mobile computing technologies, any online problem can quickly have far reaching effects well beyond the initial issue.
In order to ensure that web site operators may make as broad a use of this content as possible and that these web sites do not violate the rights of those whose content has been uploaded, many web site have Terms of Use that contain intellectual property licenses, assignments and indemnifications.
A recent federal District Court in Maryland examined whether the mere act of uploading photographs to a website met the requirements of forming a valid electronic contract sufficient to assign copyrights in the photographs under Section 204(a) of the Copyright Act, which requires assignments to be in writing and signed by the assignor.
In Metro. Reg’l Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., No. 12-cv-00954 (D. Md. Nov. 13, 2012) the defendant argued plaintiff could not state a claim for infringement on the photographs because the assignments of these photographs to plaintiff were void. Defendant argued that the web site Terms of Use Agreement (“TOU”) and the electronic process in which subscribers assigned copyrights in the photographs to plaintiff did not comply with Section 204(a) of the Copyright Act. The Court disagreed.
The Court first looked at Section 204(a). That section provides that “[a] transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.” 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). The Court then turned to the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (“E-SIGN”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001 et seq., to reject defendant’s argument that the assignments were invalid. E-SIGN provides, in relevant part:
“[n]otwithstanding any statute, regulation, or other rule of law . . . with respect to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce–
(1) a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; and
(2) a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.
15 U.S.C. § 7001(a).
“The term ‘electronic signature’ means an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.” Id. § 7006(5). The Court concluded that the TOU was clear in its terms and that the electronic process by which subscribers assigned the copyrights in the photographs met E-SIGN and Section 204(a) requirements. Accordingly, the Court held that the assignments were not invalid as a matter of law.
By TIM SMITH — The Greenville News. A month after state officials learned of a massive data breach at the Department of Revenue, officials are still discussing what security measures to take to protect all of the state’s computer systems.
Now that the President’s electoral and popular vote victories are in the books, their various ramifications are still being felt. One key element of the addition of four more years to the President’s legacy is the issue of cybersecurity.
The Cyber Security panel taking place in Tel-Aviv this week at the HLS 2012 event is attracting considerable interest on the backdrop of the recent revelations of massive Iranian cyber attacks crippling the networks of Aramco Oil Company in Saudi Arabia.
Cyber security facility launched
Alpena News
YPSILANTI, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has announced the opening of a facility designed to help electronic security professionals detect and prevent cyber threats and attacks.
Evolving Cyber Crooks Waiting For That Click
The Borneo Post
On the final day of the three-day Cyber Security Awareness campaign, Mohd Izuddin bin Hj Md Hussin, Learning Solution Specialist from Tech One Global, who delivered a public talk on ‘Protect your Computer, Your Family and Yourself’ at Times Square.
I’m surprised at how often I receive commercial bulk email messages that are not compliant with the Federal CAN SPAM act.The two biggest mistakes I see are 1) no physical address and 2) no opt-out/unsubscribe mechanism.
Image via CrunchBase
Another common mistake is a “blind” bulk email address list like “Undisclosed-Recipients@email.com.” Not only do I NOT know which address this received the offensive message, there usually isn’t even a proper return address for me to send an “Unsubscribe” message.
With the popularity of social media, you’ve probably received a Twitter promotion for iPhones, special deals, free downloads, etc. While it’s easy to dismiss poorly-written tweets from obvious spammers, when someone replies to you on Twitter, says “must read, check it out” and the topic is clearly the kind of thing you read and share it’s more difficult to tell. Often, these are from legitimate accounts where a human has taken the time to compose and send the message.
In light of the growing use of electronic mail (“email”) messages for advertising, marketing, corporate communications and customer service, is essential to have some familiarity with the Federal “Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act of 2003” also known as the CAN SPAM Act (the “Act”) The Act provides the parameters of its application, explicit prohibitions, requirements for transmission of legally compliant email messages including the “Opt-Out” mechanism and vicarious liability. Generally speaking, the Act was written to prohibit the fraudulent, deceptive, predatoryand abusive practices that threaten to undermine the success and effectiveness of commercial email and email marketing.
Congress drafted the Act to impose limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial email messages. Unlike some state initiatives, the Act is an “opt-out” law. Put another way, for most purposes permission of the e-mail recipient is not required. However, once an email recipient has indicated a desire to opt-out or no longer receive such messages, failure to comply with the recipient’s request may subject both the sender and the person or entity on whose behalf the message was sent to severe penalties.
Frequently asked question about the Act include:
1) To Whom Does The Act Apply? The Act applies to any person or entity that sends email.
2) What Activities Are Prohibited By The Act? The Act is primarily concerned with explicitly prohibiting certain predatory and abusive commercial email practices.
3) What Are The Requirements For Sending Email Messages? Section 5(a) of the Act sets requires the inclusion non-misleading information regarding: (a) transmission, (b) subject, (c) email address, (d) Opt-out and physical address, and (e) clear and conspicuous language identifying sexually-oriented messages.
4) Who Can Be Liable for Violations? The Act applies to both the party actually sending the commercial email messages and those who procure their services.
Discussion
The primary substantive provisions of the Act can be divided into three parts found in Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6. Section 4 of the Act addresses “predatory and abusive” practices prohibited by the Act. Section 5 details the requirements for transmission of messages that comply with the Act. Section 6 details the requirements for transmission and identification of sexually-oriented messages. Section 6 is not discussed in this article.
Section 4 of the Act lists specific “predatory and abusive” practices prohibited by the Act. In short, the Act specifically prohibits: (i) accessing a computer without authorization for the purpose of initiating transmission of multiple commercial email messages, (ii) transmission of multiple commercial email messages with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, (iii) transmission of multiple commercial email messages with materially false header information, (iv) registration of email accounts or domain names using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, and (v) false representations regarding the registration of Internet Protocol addresses used to initiate multiple commercial email messages.
The second relevant part, set forth in Section 5 of the Act, details the requirements for transmission of messages that comply with the Act. Subject to certain limitations discussed below, the Act requires that email messages contain: (i) transmission information that is not materially false or misleading, (ii) subject information that is not materially false or misleading, (iii) a return address or comparable mechanism for opt-out purposes, (iv) identifier, Opt-out and physical address, and (v) clear and conspicuous language identifying sexually-oriented messages as such. (Note, this last requirement is not discussed. See above.) Lastly, the Act implicates both commercial email transmission service providers as well as those who procure their services.
To Whom Does The Act Apply?
The Act applies to any person or entity that sends email. The Act specifically regulates “commercial electronic mail messages,” defined as any email message “the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose).” However, the Act specifically excludes from this definition “transactional or relationship messages.” A “transactional or relationship message” falls within one of five categories of messages:
communications that facilitate, complete or confirm a commercial transaction previously agreed to by the recipient;
communications that provide warranty or other product information with respect to a product or service previously used or purchased by the recipient;
notifications with respect to a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable ongoing commercial relationship;
information directly related to an employment relationship or related benefit plan in which the recipient is currently involved; and
communications to deliver goods or services, including product updates or upgrades, under the terms of a transaction previously agreed to by the recipient.(Emphasis added.)
The purpose for the distinction between “commercial electronic mail messages” and “transactional or relationship messages” is to exempt certain types of communications from compliance with all the message transmission requirements of the Act. As should be clear from the list above, the Act distinguishes the types of communications based on the relationship between the sender and recipient rather than on the character of the message. Put another way, so long as the communication is related to some type of existing business relationship, it is not a “commercial electronic mail message.”
What Activities Are Prohibited By The Act?
Section 4 of the Act is primarily concerned with prohibiting certain predatory and abusive commercial email practices. Section 4(a) amends Chapter 47 of Title 18 of the United States Code by adding Section 1037 which specifies the offenses that constitute “fraud and related activity in connection with email.” An offense is committed by anyone who directly or indirectly, knowingly:
accesses a protected computer without authorization, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from or through such computer,
uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service, as to the origin of such messages,
materially falsifies header information in multiple commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally initiates the transmission of such messages,
registers, using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, for five or more electronic mail accounts or online user accounts or two or more domain names, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from any combination of such accounts or domain names, or
falsely represents oneself to be the registrant or the legitimate successor in interest to the registrant of 5 or more Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from such addresses.
Clearly, Section 4 is primarily concerned with preventing practices whereby the sender intentionally, either through outright fraud or other deception, conceals its true identity or the true commercial character of the message.
What Are The Requirements For Sending Email Messages?
Section 5(a) of the Act sets forth certain other protections for the users of commercial email.
Accurate Transmission Information. Among the affirmative requirements of Section 5(a), Section 5(a)(1) prohibits sending either a commercial electronic mail message, or a transactional or relationship message, that contains, or is accompanied by, header information that is materially false or materially misleading. Unlike the general prohibition against sending messages with materially false header information under Section 4, in addition to having technically accurate transmission information, the sender is prohibited from having used false pretense or other deceptive means to acquire such information (e.g. email accounts, domain names and IP addresses). Furthermore, the “from” line must “accurately identify the person transmitting the message.” Lastly, the sender must accurately identify the computers used to originate, relay or retransmit the message.
Note, the following only apply to commercial electronic mail messages:
Accurate Subject Information. Messages must have accurate subject information. Subject information would not be accurate if a “person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that a subject heading of the message would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message.”[8]
Inclusion of Opt-out Mechanism. Messages MUST contain a functioning return email address or other Internet-based mechanism (e.g. hyperlink), that is clearly and conspicuously displayed that enables a recipient to submit a request to opt-out of future email messages from the sender whose email address was contained in the message. The opt-out mechanism (whether email address or hyperlink, etc.) must remain functional for at least thirty (30) days after the transmission of the original message.
Removal After Objection. If a recipient makes a request using the opt-out mechanism, the sender shall not transmit any further messages to the recipient, more than ten (10) business days after the receipt of such request, if such message would fall within the scope of the request. A third-party acting on behalf of the sender shall not transmit or assist others to transmit, any further messages to the recipient, more than ten (10) business days after the receipt of such request, if such third party knows or should know of the recipient’s objection. Lastly, the sender and any third party who knows that the recipient has made such a request, shall not sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise transfer or release the electronic mail address of the recipient for any purpose other than compliance with the Act or other provision of law.
Inclusion of Identifier, Opt-out & Physical Address. Every message must clearly and conspicuously: (i) identify the message as an advertisement or solicitation; (ii) provide notice of the opportunity to opt-out of future communications; and (iii) provide a valid physical postal address of the sender. However, the notice that a message is an advertisement or solicitation does not apply where the recipient has given prior affirmative consent to receive the message.
Related Activities Proscribed.
Other prohibitions in the Act concern unethical or unscrupulous practices that tend to coincide with deceptive or abusive email. Several common methods for generating email distribution lists have also been proscribed. The Act prohibits certain unethical practices such as:
hijacking another email server to send or relay messages;
“harvesting” email addresses that appear on others’ Web sites;
randomly generating email addresses;
knowingly linking an email ad to a fraudulently registered domain; and
participating in other offenses such as fraud, identity theft, etc.
Who Can Be Liable for Violations?
The Act applies to both the party actually sending the commercial email messages and those who procure their services.[9] One cannot “outsource” its “spam” and thereby avoid liability under the Act. One may be held accountable if the email service employed isn’t actually using a legally-compiled or permission-based list. Under some parts of the Act one may be held liable for employing a third party to distribute the messages “with actual knowledge, or by consciously avoiding knowing, whether such [third party] is engaging or will engage, in a pattern or practice that violates this Act.”
CONCLUSION
The Act was written to prohibit the fraudulent, deceptive, predatory and abusive practices that threaten to undermine the success and effectiveness of commercial email and email marketing. Since Bacon’s uses email to communicate with employees, vendors, existing and prospective customers, Bacon’s is clearly subject to the Act. The Act focuses on enumerating proscribed activities rather than affirmative obligations to make it easier for legitimate, honest businesses to comply with the Act. The Act distinguishes communications based on a previously existing relationship between the sender and the recipient from those communications that are prospective in nature. Generally, email messages not based on a pre-existing relationship are subject to greater affirmative requirements.
Compliance Guidelines.
Be Aware of the Requirements for Transmitting Messages.
The Federal Trade Commission has published a guide to help mobile application developers observe truth-in-advertising and basic privacy principles when marketing new mobile apps. The FTC’s new publication, “Marketing Your Mobile App: Get It Right from the Start,” notes that there are general guidelines that all app developers should consider. They include:
Tell the Truth About What Your App Can Do. – “Whether it’s what you say on a website, in an app store, or within the app itself, you have to tell the truth,” the publication advises;
Disclose Key Information Clearly and Conspicuously. – “If you need to disclose information to make what you say accurate, your disclosures have to be clear and conspicuous.”
Build Privacy Considerations in From the Start. – Incorporate privacy protections into your practices, limit the information you collect, securely store what you hold on to, and safely dispose of what you no longer need. “For any collection or sharing of information that’s not apparent, get users’ express agreement. That way your customers aren’t unwittingly disclosing information they didn’t mean to share.”
Offer Choices that are Easy to Find and Easy to Use. – “Make it easy for people to find the tools you offer, design them so they’re simple to use, and follow through by honoring the choices users have made.”
Honor Your Privacy Promises. – “Chances are you make assurances to users about the security standards you apply or what you do with their personal information. App developers – like all other marketers – have to live up to those promises.”
Protect Kids’ Privacy. – “If your app is designed for children or if you know that you are collecting personal information from kids, you may have additional requirements under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.”
Collect Sensitive Information Only with Consent. – Even when you’re not dealing with kids’ information, it’s important to get users’ affirmative OK before you collect any sensitive data from them, like medical, financial, or precise geolocation information.
Keep User Data Secure. – Statutes like the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act may require you to provide reasonable security for sensitive information.
Illustration of Facebook mobile interface (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A recent New Jersey District Court case underscores the rise in tensions between employers and employees when it comes to Social Media Accounts. In Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp., the Court denied an employer’s motion to dismiss a former employee’s invasion of privacy claim that alleged a supervisor accessed the employee’s Facebook account. Ehling worked for Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corporation (“MONOC”) and became Acting President of the local union for Professional Emergency Medical Services. Ehling alleged that MONOC began engaging in a pattern of retaliatory conduct against her eventually leading to termination of her employment.
Posting Limited to “Friends”
Ehling maintained an account on Facebook, but kept access to her wall post limited to Facebook “friends,” many of whom were coworkers, but none of whom were members of MONOC’s management. Ehling alleged that MONOC surreptitiously gained access to her Facebook account when a supervisor summoned a MONOC employee, who was a Facebook friend, and coerced, strong-armed, and/or threatened the employee to access his Facebook account in the supervisor’s presence for the purpose of viewing and copying Ehling’s posts.
Ehling alleged that MONOC then sent letters regarding a certain posting to the New Jersey Board of Nursing and the New Jersey Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services as it was concerned that Plaintiff’s Facebook posting showed a disregard for patient safety. Ehling alleged the letters were malicious and meant to damage her professionally.
Ehling’s claim for common law invasion of privacy was premised on Defendants’ alleged unauthorized “access of her private Facebook postings” The Court denied MONOC’s motion to dismiss which argued that Ehliong did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her Facebook posting. The Court stated that Under New Jersey law, to state a claim for intrusion upon one’s seclusion or private affairs, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that (1) her solitude, seclusion, or private affairs were intentionally infringed upon, and that (2) this infringement would highly offend a reasonable person. See Bisbee v. John C. Conover Agency Inc., 186 N.J. Super. 335, 339 (App. Div. 1982). “[E]xpectations of privacy are established by general social norms” and must be objectively reasonable – a plaintiff’s subjective belief that something is private is irrelevant. White, 344 N.J. Super. 211, 223 (Ch. Div. 2001).
The Impact of Social Media on Privacy is Unsettled
The Court went on to make further observations on the impact of Social Media on Privacy:
“Privacy in social networking is an emerging, but underdeveloped, area of case law. See Robert Sprague, Invasion of the Social Networks: Blurring the Line between Personal Life and the Employment Relationship, 50 U. Louisville L. Rev. 1, 13 (2011) (discussing the undefined legal boundary between public and private communications on social networking websites).
There appears to be some consistency in the case law on the two ends of the privacy spectrum. On one end of the spectrum, there are cases holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for material posted to an unprotected website that anyone can view. See, e.g., United States v. Gines-Perez, 214 F.Supp.2d 205, 225 (D.P.R. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 90 F. App’x 3 (1st Cir. 2004) (“[I]t it strikes the Court as obvious that a claim to privacy is unavailable to someone who places information on an indisputably, public medium, such as the Internet, without taking any measures to protect the information”); Yath v. Fairview Clinics, N.P., 767 N.W.2d 34, 44(Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that privacy was lost when private information was posted on a publicly accessible Internet website and “[a]ccess to the publication was not restricted”).
Some Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
On the other end of the spectrum, there are cases holding that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy for individual, password-protected online communications. See, e.g., Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 201 N.J. 300 (N.J. 2010) (employee could have reasonably expected that e-mail communications with her lawyer through her personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account would remain private); Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in personal, password-protected e-mail messages stored on a third party’s server, although the employee had accessed that outside server while at work).
Legal Approaches Continue to Develop
The Court note that a consistent approach hasn’t yet developed. While most courts hold that a communication is not necessarily public just because it is accessible there is disagreement as to how far that theory extends. Some courts have adopted the rule that when one shares private information to one or more persons, there may still be a reasonable expectation that the recipients of the information will not disseminate it further. What is clear is that privacy determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, in light of all the facts presented.
PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — MutualMind, an award-winning social media technology developer based in Dallas, Texas, announced an agreement today with LexisNexis, a leading provider of legal content and technology solutions.
While consumer brands have embraced Facebook as a key tool in building deeper customer engagement, the biggest social network largely remains terra incognita in the legal world. The sector has certainly harnessed professional networking sites.
Legal action could be taken against people in Bahrain, who incite violence and spread sectarianism on social media, said a top official. The initiative comes as a new code of honour for social media users is set to be launched by the Bahrain Bloc.
An overwhelming majority of investigators using social media for investigative purposes are “self taught,” according to a new survey of 1200 Federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals.
That’s but one of the many conclusions found in a comprehensive new survey — conducted in a partnership between PoliceOne and LexisNexis Risk Solutions — focused on the impact of social media on law enforcement in criminal investigations. Among the …
The State of Maryland already has passed a law forbidding employers from asking job candidates for their passwords to Facebook and other social media sites, and California is considering a similar law. 01fgSCREEN2.jpg View full size · The Society for …
With an understanding of some of the relevant issues, employers can implement meaningful and reasonable policies and guidelines for employees and respond appropriately and legally to social media issues that arise. Below are a few of the discrete issues …
The trick for us is trying to provide legally correct information, in such a way that is easy to understand, to the American public so that investors truly understand their options with retirement savings.” “Internet, the online experience and social media are the 21st Century.”
Below are methodologies and metrics for determining the ROI of these specific social media use cases. The metrics roll up to three major categories of benefits: revenue impact, operational efficiencies, and legal and compliance risk avoidance.
David M. Adler, Esq. is an attorney, author, educator, entrepreneur and partner with Leavens, Strand, Glover & Adler, LLC, a boutique law firm in Chicago, Illinois created with a specific mission: provide businesses with a competitive advantage by enabling them to leverage their intangible assets and creative content in order to drive innovation and increase overall business value.
We meet this challenge by providing legal counsel on issues related to creation, protection and commercialization of intangible assets, our comprehensive understating of the relevant law, our team of seasoned professionals and our client service philosophy.
By using a hosted version of 17a-4’s DataParser for Social Media schools, financial institutions, government agencies and other regulated institutions can now avail themselves of this free option to capture social media public profiles and other web content into their email archive. (PRWEB) July 24, 2012 … Most regulated institutions have archival systems in place to support the monitoring of textual content, the retention of the data, and the facilities to run legal holds and e-Discovery productions.
July 22, 2012 – Social media agency Maximize Social Media LLC announced its social media marketing program today for personal injury attorneys, providing needed support to law firms nationwide.
Join us after work on 1 August at the Vibe Hotel in Sydney’s Milsons Point to hear from super connector Iggy Pintado, Switched On Media’s head of social media Hannah Law, and Amelia Zaina, director of Small Business Services at American Express.
So if she had just toned it down a bit, perhaps suggesting that younger people shouldn’t be ruled out for their youth, or that age and experience are different qualifiers in the context of social media, I might actually agree with her. What I believe, firmly, is that the 25-year-old should not be excluded from leadership.
Quote start The ConnectedCOPS Awards were created with the intent of recognizing the great work being done with social media in six categories, by individual sworn officers and law enforcement agencies.
A 2011 survey of 800 law-enforcement agencies conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police found that 88 percent of the agencies used social media, mostly for investigations. Almost half of those agencies have a social media policy.
LexisNexis® Risk Solutions today announced the results of a comprehensive survey focused on the impact of social media on law enforcement.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CYBERSECURITY Workplace Diversity, Social Media Implications, Cybersecurity
CHICAGO, July 19, 2012 — Ensuring a diverse and inclusive workplace, the implications of social media on law practice and privacy, cybersecurity, and access.
July 21, 2012, 12:04 p.m.. People are calling upon the caped crusader in the wake of the Colorado theater shooting with the 21st century bat signal: social media.
And with the government mulling a media law to tighten its grip over the fledgling but lively Afghan press corps, Nai hoped social media could help safeguard political and social freedoms, as occurred during the wave of uprisings across the Middle East.
It’s a bracing lesson, on a local stage, in the power of social media to create community around an issue and ratchet up pressure on key players – in this case, the members of the Abington board and its president and CEO, Laurence Merlis. “It’s amazing to me just how fast word spread,” …. A community-conscious and activist community, with a high concentration of concerned, committed people who work in industries such as law, medicine, public relations, and journalism.
Once new information began streaming in about the shooting, over 100 viewers began responding to the Action 4 News Facebook page and Twitter feed. As the day progressed, over 500 comments came into valleycentral.com andAction 4 social media
Media Wise Parents to the rescue
Windsor This Week
Media Wise Parents helps parents, educators and churches become more aware with social media and the internet. Tweet · Bookmark and … It’s certainly in my background with law and marketing, it’s always something that interests me.
Law enforcement is taking to social media because criminals are changing their behavior and using social media to facilitate crime. In response, law enforcement officials are using it to track down criminals and as a predictive policing tool, said Haywood.
WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–LexisNexis® Risk Solutions today announced the results of a comprehensive survey focused on the impact of social media on law enforcement in criminal investigations.
The survey, of more than 1200 law enforcement professionals with federal, state, and local agencies, found that 83% of the respondents are using social media, particularly Facebook and YouTube, to further their investigations.
It’s not just prospective customers, partners or employers who may be scanning the social media landscape to glean information about you and your organization. The long arm of the law has joined the party as well, a new survey shows.
How Law Enforcement Is Using Social Media (Infographic)
Law enforcement officials are using social media to solve crimes and will continue to do so in greater numbers. In an online survey conducted by LexisNexis Risk Solutions, four out of five law enforcement officials used social media.
Ping® by AdlerLaw A Legal Blog 