General Social Media Information Archives

A Tale of Two Social Media Privacy Concerns

As social media continues to evolve, and its use becomes more than just sharing status updates, privacy concerns continue to rage on. There were two items in the news that related to privacy, but have very different concerns and implications.

Microsoft vs the US Government

The first news item is more well known to the general public – Microsoft filed a lawsuit against the US government for violating first amendment rights. There are two pieces to their claim:

Current law states that a consumer’s account can be viewed without communication to that person that it is being looked at, which violates Microsoft’s first amendment rights. The law states that notifying the subject of the search can put the investigation in jeopardy.

The company claims that cloud storage, while on the internet essentially, is still considered personal storage and should be treated as such.

The company claims that personal data, including emails, is private and users should be notified before they are looked at by the government or anyone else for that matter.

Local Police Department Monitors Social Media

In other news, the Oakland Police Department came into the limelight for purchasing social media software that allows the department to monitor social media content published online in an attempt to monitor criminal/drug/gang activity, investigate potential suspects, monitor protest activity, and other similar tasks. They came under fire for a few implications of their recent purchase:

By making this purchase without it being public knowledge, it infringes on the community’s right to privacy.

By monitoring social content, it may make citizens wary to post on social sites, thus inhibiting their right to free speech.

There are concerns that the monitoring will not be limited in nature, allowing law enforcement to monitor all forms of social content.

Privacy concerns from two angles – is either okay?

These are two very different matters, but neither seems overly concerning, at least in my opinion. The main difference between the two cases is that the Microsoft case focuses on private data while the Police Department story focuses on public data. Two very different things here.

As for Microsoft, I am more concerned with that as it relates to private communications; while there is nothing the government would read on my own email accounts, I am not comfortable with the idea that they can check in at any time. If I were a potential terrorist, then I believe that I lose that right to privacy. As long as this mandate is not abused, I think it’s a fair law and unfortunately Microsoft should abide by the government’s ruling to not communicate to a user that they are looking into their email communications. Again, only if it is not abused.

The police departments have a whole other issue, one that I fully support. Why? Because monitoring programs such as the one highlighted in the article are only able to capture public data – that is, social content that is posted on your site where your privacy settings are not set up properly. These types of monitoring programs cannot collect direct or private messages on social sites, and cannot capture data you post on a social site that you have set to be completely private.

This is a lesson that is taking an extremely long time to learn across the board – if you post public information, it is just that – public. It is there for the world to see, so there is no valid reason or civil liberty that is being taken away. To address the concern that if law enforcement is monitoring social media, people will feel as though they cannot freely post: I don’t believe that will ever be an issue. After all, those who are involved in illegal activity certainly aren’t too concerned with their online image or what they post, and aren’t worrying about who is monitoring. For the rest of us, we have nothing to worry about. If you’re really concerned, then it’s a good time to make sure all of your social content settings are as private as possible, and then remember that if you’re posting content on blogs, message boards or forums, it’s there for the world to see.

Move Over Breathalylzer….Meet The Textalzyer

It was just a matter of time….

New York has proposed a bill to utilize a new tool that is currently in development – it is referred to as a textalyzer, which is along the same lines as a breathalyzer. The bill proposes that law enforcement would be allowed to use this textalyzer at the scene of accidents to determine if the driver(s) were texting while driving.

According to the news outlets, the textalyzer would not share the content of the texts or any other personal information; it would simply be used to determine if the driver was texting while driving. Of course this has raised privacy concerns – there has been a question of if it will actually be true that no personal information will be made available with this tool – but given the reality of distracted driving, this should not be a real consideration in whether or not the bill is passed.

If passed, a driver could run the risk losing their license if they refuse to allow law enforcement to scan their mobile device. When the textalyzer is used and the driver is found guilty of distracted driving, they could face a penalty of having a suspended license for 12 months on the first offense, and up to 18 months’ suspension if it happens twice in a five year period.

Personally, I think this textalyzer should be expanded to include any online activity while driving, such as browsing websites, conducting internet searches (even if they are voiced activated), and it’s possible that this is the intent but is being referred to as a textalyzer since it will look at metadata (essentially text) on the phone.

Of course it is expected that lawyers will have a field day with this if it in fact comes to fruition. I can imagine they would fight it based on it being a new technology and questioning its accuracy, reliability, etc, and potential privacy issues if they can find a loophole there. I think this is a great tool for law enforcement to have on hand, and if this bill passes I think it will help more than cause issues. It will take some time to figure out from a legal standpoint of course, but the benefits definitely seem to outweigh the risks involved in introducing such a tool.

Schools Confronting Student Social Media Use

Students at schools nationwide only know social media as it currently is, as they were born into this new technology. Despite warnings and conversations, there are still many issues related to social media use among school age kids, including cyber bullying, inappropriate image/content sharing, and even threats. School districts realize that they have to be proactive and continually monitor social activity, but one story that has made the news recently highlights how schools are staring to have these conversations.

A bomb threat made on a social media app spurred a forum for parents of three schools in Pacific Grove, California recently. The forum addressed parents and provided further education on the use of social media and how to educate students on responsibility online. It again touched on the concept that there is no such thing as “anonymous” online anymore, despite what some apps will suggest to teens. It’s surprising that this continues to be a talking point, one that most would realize by now. However, when facing teenagers, who think they are invincible and typically still believe that whatever they read online is true, it’s not really that surprising.

Despite continued education in this area, schools still face a challenge when it comes to social media usage and identifying issues before they become problematic. Thankfully, technological advances have made this a bit easier. Schools have been turning to social media monitoring to actively monitor social media activity among students and even around school facilities. This can be helpful in many ways:

By monitoring social media activity via a location based program, schools can monitor school events to proactively pinpoint any potential issues related to violence, for example.

Continual location based monitoring can also pinpoint issues with gang related violence, threats, or even students that are struggling in some way, whether it’s emotionally, peer related, or the like.

As teens reach the point of graduation, schools can use a social media background check program to assist high school students with reviewing their social media activity and provide further education on the importance of maintaining a positive online presence.

It’s clear that continued education among teens and even pre-teens is much needed, and will continue to be an important factor in maintaining social responsibility. More and more apps are promoting “anonymous” social posting, yet this isn’t entirely true and can be misleading to teens. What they don’t realize is that they can still be identified online, even if they don’t tag their location or use their given name as a screen name; social media monitoring programs have become more sophisticated, and as schools turn to such tools, this will be brought to light and hopefully give students some food for thought.

Continued conversation and education among school administrators, parents, and students will help build this generation into a socially responsible group. However, it’s a long road and one that has a lot of twists and turns; the more that kids understand about social media content and monitoring, the better off they’ll be in the long run.

Debt Collectors Using Social Media: Is It Legal?

Like many other industries, debt collectors are using the tools at their disposal to locate debtors and collect outstanding debt; social media and even texting have come into play. It leaves some wondering if it is legal and/or ethical.

According to the FTC, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act doesn’t prohibit this, as long as debt collectors are staying in compliance. This can be a bit more tricky with social media compared to other methods for contacting debtors.

Along with the more standard compliance issues, including being upfront as to the reason for the contact, not using deception to get debtors to contact the collection agency, and providing full disclosures, there is one area that can get fuzzy when it comes to social media.

It’s standard law that debt collection agencies cannot discuss or disclose information to third parties. In a traditional sense, if a collection agency calls a home to speak with someone, they can discuss specifics with the spouse, for example. When it comes to social media, it means a bit more than this.

First, it prohibits debt collectors to post information on a person’s social media site in a pubic facing venue. This means that they can send a tweet directed at the user, post on someone’s Facebook wall for the world to see, or reach out publicly through a message board or forum. This, for example, is wildly problematic:

Second, it takes it a step further and makes the waters more muddy. In many social media venues, one would have to join the user’s social network (become “friends” on Facebook, or mutually follow each other on Twitter) to communicate through private messaging or Direct Message, which would fulfill the third party disclosure compliance. However, in a recent FTC investigation, it was determined that “[D]ebt collectors may violate the FDCPA and/or the FTC Act by . . . requesting to join debtors’ social media networks (for example, by sending a ‘friend request’ on Facebook).” So that’s not an option either.

What’s left for debt collection agencies as far as using social media to identify and communicate with debtors? Since direct communication can be risky, they can use social media monitoring to

Learn more about the debtor’s current address or other identifying information, such as a cell phone number, if the person has their profiles set to public vs private

Identify connections through social networks that may help them locate the debtor to make contact

Learn more detailed information about the debtor, including if they are currently employed, which would indicate that they have an income with which to repay the debt

While social media and mobile devices have potentially made life a bit easier for debt collectors, the laws are still as stringent as they are for traditional means of contact. Of the two, text communication appears to be the safer for direct communication. However, social media background checks and social media research can be incredibly helpful for this industry if used correctly.

Where Chipotle Went Wrong With Social Media Policy

Social media policies are good to have in place, but as we’ve seen this week, it’s a good idea to review the policy and make sure it has a legal standing. This was not the case for Chipotle, and it landed the company in some legal trouble.

Long story short: An employee posted a tweet about his opinion of his employer, stating that “nothing is free, only cheap #labor. Crew members make only $8.50hr how much is that steak bowl really?” He was told that this violated Chipotle’s social media policy, which bans “disparaging, false” statements and was asked to delete it, which he did. While disparaging, it was not deemed false and was in fact a permissible statement to make, although probably not the best tweet to post, especially directed at your employer.

After this, the employee again turned to social media to encourage coworkers to sign a petition regarding employee breaks. He was then fired for doing so.

The case was taken to court, and found that Chipotle’s social media policy was illegal and ordered the company to rehire the employee, provide back pay for lost wages, and post signage that indicates some of their employee policies, especially the social media policy, were illegal.

Why did this happen?

While Chipotle’s social media policy strictly banned employees from posting false and disparaging content on social media, the judge stated that the content has to be proven to have a malicious intent; in this case, the judge decided it was not malicious in nature. Lesson learned – posting negative or misleading content cannot be the sole basis for violating a social media policy; malicious intent must be proven.

The social media policy violated an employee’s protected concerted act. Examples of this type of protection include employees talking with management about pay or working conditions, and employees discussing other workplace issues outside of pay among themselves. Circulating a petition was within the employee’s rights in this case, and cannot be deemed a violation of social media policy. Lesson learned – a social media policy cannot be general in nature and must take into account various types of content that may be posted, including those falling within an employee’s protected concerted activity.

Social media policies are important, but we’ve seen that they are being closely scrutinized in the legal world. It’s important to have one in place, but even more important to have one that falls in line with legal issues to save further time and trouble. This is one example of how a social media policy can go wrong; I anticipate other similar suits to follow across the corporate world going forward until the kinks are worked out.