After British police unsuccessfully tried to get the blogging platform WordPress.com to remove offensive and threatening posts, the deputy leader of the UK’s Labour Party vowed to urge changes that would make the country’s laws less tolerant of online abuse.

As bipartisan U.S. legislation to prevent the appearance of foreign-entity-funded political ads on social media gains traction, Twitter announced that it will impose a “promoted by political account” label on election ads and allow everyone to see all ads currently running on the platform regardless of whom those ads target. These efforts will not prevent automated accounts known as “bots” from influencing voters or spreading fake news on Twitter, but an op-ed in The Guardian suggests the technology to overcome the bots problem exists.

While we’re on the subject of potential solutions for the problems that plague social media, one industry observer suggests that blockchain technology, which records digital events on a public ledger and requires consensus among users, could cure social networks’ fake-news and trolling problems, and prevent brands from purchasing fake followers.

Legislation is another way of discouraging undesirable online behavior. In Texas, “David’s Law” now requires school districts to create cyberbullying policies and to investigate bullying reports that involve students but take place off-campus or after school hours. And legislation that cleared a committee in Tallahassee would make threatening someone on social media in Florida a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Should artificial intelligence be regulated? Some experts believe that the time is now, on the cusp of the AI revolution.

Facebook acquired a nine-week-old startup whose app encourages teens to anonymously exchange positive feedback.

This piece quoting Socially Aware contributor Julie O’Neill explains how cross-device tracking can cause employees to expose their organizations to significant data security risks—especially if the employees use their personal devices to perform work-related tasks.

The online marketplace eBay launched a service for sellers of certain luxury wallets and handbags that relies on experts to verify the authenticity of the goods being sold, backed by a 200% money-back guarantee.

Instagram has become such an integral part of promoting restaurants that the Culinary Institute of America will begin offering electives in food photography and food styling.

Tips for becoming a social media influencer from a pair of fashion bloggers who made it big.

With much fanfare, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to take actions relating to so-called “social media influencers” who allegedly fail to disclose material connections to the products or brands they endorse. Recurring enforcement actions and guidance—and the FTC’s ongoing promotion of its own efforts, such as through Twitter chats—make it clear that the FTC believes that its message has still not been heard by all of the players in this advertising ecosystem, including influencers themselves.

In short, any endorsements in any medium where the endorser has a material connection of any kind to the endorsed advertiser must be disclosed.

The most recent developments include an enforcement action against a company—and two of its officers—in connection with endorsements of the company made by the officers in YouTube videos and in social media.  Before turning to this case, however, we provide a brief overview of how the FTC has gotten here. Continue Reading Brands Beware: FTC Continues Campaign on Social Media Influencer Disclosures

Recent challenges to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) authority to police data security practices have criticized the agency’s failure to provide adequate guidance to companies.

In other words, the criticism goes, businesses do not know what they need to do to avoid a charge that their data security programs fall short of the law’s requirements.

A series of blog posts that the FTC began on July 21, 2017, titled “Stick with Security,” follows promises from acting Chair Maureen Ohlhausen to provide more transparency about practices that contribute to reasonable data security. Some of the posts provide insight into specific data security practices that businesses should take, while others merely suggest what, in general, the FTC sees as essential to a comprehensive data security program. Continue Reading More Insight From the FTC on Data Security—or More of the Same?

As Socially Aware readers know, privacy and data security issues are among the most critical legal issues confronting companies that do business online. With ransomware attacks and hacking incidents on the rise, and with privacy and data security laws becoming increasingly burdensome, companies are spending more time and resources than ever before addressing privacy and data security issues. Indeed, Morrison & Foerster recently collaborated with ALM Intelligence to take an in-depth look at the types of privacy and data security issues with which in-house legal departments are wrestling, and how such departments are dealing with these issues. The resulting report is interesting and informative, and can be found here.

On June 22, 2017, the German Parliament passed a bill that, among other things, awards extensive surveillance powers to law enforcement authorities. The new law, once in force, will allow law enforcement to covertly install software on end user devices allowing the interception of ongoing communications via Internet services such as WhatsApp or Skype. These new measures may be used for investigating a wide array of crimes (the “Catalog Crimes”), which are classified as “severe” but range from murder to sports betting fraud to everything in between.

Today, the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) is only allowed to engage in similar activities to prevent international terrorism. All other law enforcement authorities are only allowed to intercept regular text messages and listen to phone conversations in cases of Catalog Crimes. However, these investigators are currently fighting a losing battle against end-to-end encrypted Internet services. With respect to such services, the current legal framework only allows for access via the respective telecom operators. These operators, however, can only provide law enforcement with the encrypted communications streams. By introducing the new law, the German government now aims to prevent “legal vacuums” allegedly resulting from this surveillance gap. Continue Reading German Parliament Enacts Wide-ranging Surveillance Powers Allowing End User Devices to Be Hacked by Authorities

Live Webinar: June 6, 2017 at 12:00 PM (ET) / 9:00 AM (PT)

The May 2018 compliance deadline for the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is fast approaching and—with non-compliance penalties of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global turnover at stake—you cannot afford to miss the deadline.

Please join Socially Aware contributors and Morrison Foerster privacy & data security attorneys Lokke Moerel and Marian A. Waldmann Agarwal for a complimentary, practical webinar explaining where you should be in your efforts to meet the May 2018 compliance deadline, where you need to be in a year, and how to get there.

Lokke and Marian will pay particularly close attention to the aspects of the GDPR that will have the greatest impact on your company’s operations:

  • How to best implement the GDPR’s extensive documentation requirements;
  • How the right to data portability and the individual’s right to be forgotten (RTBF) will impact your business; and
  • How vendors are implementing their new obligations under the GDPR and how vendor contracts will need to evolve to comply with GDPR requirements.

Register for the Data Protection Masterclass here.

In the most recent edition of his CyberSide Chat series, Socially Aware contributor Andy Serwin discusses ransomware attacks, including:

  • the reasons why ransomware attacks are becoming more common;
  • the types of ransomware attacks companies should prepare to address; and
  • the strategies that companies can employ to help guard against, and to help mitigate the damage arising from, these types of cybersecurity breaches.

Andy explains not only the defenses that companies can implement to protect themselves against a ransomware attack, but also the issues a ransomware-attack-response plan must address—a topic that another Socially Aware contributor, Nate Taylor, tackled in his Sept. 26, 2016 blog post 5 Questions to Help Prepare For a Ransomware Attack.

Check out Andy’s insightful presentation:

GettyImages-538899668-600pxWith corporate data security breaches on the rise, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) has adopted rules requiring financial institutions to take certain measures to safeguard their data and inform state regulators about cybersecurity incidents. Intended to thwart future cyberattacks and protect consumers, those “Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies” (the “Cybersecurity Rule” or “Rule”) finally took effect on March 1, 2017. The NYDFS has released guidance on how to follow the Rule, it comes in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and a summary of key compliance dates. Although the guidance is apparently intended to assist covered financial institutions as the clock ticks towards the first of the Rule’s phased compliance deadlines less than six months away, the guidance is unlikely to make the implementation challenges many financial institutions will face any less daunting.

The Cybersecurity Rule requires that covered financial institutions, among other things, adopt detailed programs, policies and procedures to protect Information Systems (which are defined to include essentially any computer or networked electronic system) and certain sensitive business and consumer information (“Nonpublic Information”) from cybersecurity threats.

The Rule is narrower and less prescriptive than the original proposal from September 2016 (and largely the same as the second proposal from December 2016). Nonetheless, covered financial institutions now have less than six months to establish compliance with the first of the Cybersecurity Rule’s requirements. This means covered financial institutions will quickly need to: (1) assess the current state of their information security programs and what modifications may be required based on the specific policies and controls required by the Rule; and (2) consider the new processes that may need to be created to meet the Rule’s reporting, recordkeeping and certification requirements. Continue Reading N.Y.’s New Cybersecurity Regulations: What Financial Services Companies Need to Know

In the most recent edition of his CyberSide Chat series, Socially Aware contributor Andy Serwin discusses emerging cybersecurity issues including:

  • The need to strike a balance between the efficiencies of the Internet of Things and the increased cyberattack vulnerability that usually goes along with using extra devices;
  • The pre- and post-cyber-breach steps a company can take to mitigate the damage that could be caused by a theft of the company’s data or an attempt to shut down its systems;
  • The factors companies should consider when determining how much of their resources to dedicate to preventing a cyberattack.

Check out Andy’s insightful presentation:

BigBrotherEye-GettyImages-149355675-600pxIf your company collects information regarding consumers though Internet-connected devices, you will want to take note of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent privacy-related settlement (brought in conjunction with the New Jersey Attorney General) with smart TV manufacturer Vizio, Inc. The settlement is significant for four reasons:

  • The FTC reinforces the position it has taken in other actions that the collection and use of information in a way that would surprise the consumer requires just-in-time notice and choice in order to avoid a charge of deception and/or unfairness under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
  • The FTC takes the position that television viewing activity constitutes sensitive data. This marks a departure from its approach of limiting sensitive data to information that, for example, can facilitate identity theft, precisely locate an individual, is collected online from young children or relates to matters generally considered delicate (such as health information).
  • The settlement includes a payment of $1.5 million to the FTC (as well as payment of civil penalties to New Jersey), but the legal basis for the FTC payment is not stated. This could suggest that the FTC will more aggressively seek to obtain injunctive monetary relief in Section 5 cases.
  • Acting Chairwoman Maureen Ohlhausen explicitly noted in a concurring statement her skepticism regarding both the allegation that TV viewing data is “sensitive” and that the FTC’s complaint adequately established that the practices at issue constitute “substantial injury” under the unfairness prong of Section 5.

Leaving aside what the chairwoman’s concurrence may portend for future enforcement efforts, the FTC again seems to be using allegedly bad facts about privacy practices to push the envelope of its authority. Accordingly, with the Internet of Things boom fueling a dramatic increase in the number of Internet-connected devices, companies that either collect information via such devices or make use of such collected information should consider the implications of this enforcement action.

Continue Reading Watch Out: The Federal Trade Commission Continues to Watch the (Alleged) Watchers