Almost all college students are familiar with the website JuciyCampus.com. The site, which is live on hundreds of campuses across the United States, was created in 2007 to provide college students with an anonymous forum for discussing campus gossip and other “juicy” topics. Unsurprisingly, the site quickly became host to malicious attacks on students and scurrilous mischaracterizations of people’s character.

[via]

Naturally, the students who were hurt by the site believed it to be nothing but a forum for baseless slander. In this regard, they have been very vocal in their criticism of JuicyCampus and have even spurred investigations from the Attorneys General of New Jersey and Connecticut. Despite this however, JuicyCampus has still been able to operate with relative immunity thanks to the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which says, basically, that any content posted on a website is not the responsibility of the site owner or webmaster.

Because of this,  many colleges have considered blocking access to the site completely. The optimal word in that sentence, however, is considered. Facing issues of First Amendment rights and the freedom of speech, no college has officially moved to ban the site.

That is, of course, until now. Thanks to the actions of Tennesee State University Vice President of Student Affairs Michael Freeman,  TSU has become the first public university in the country to ban JuicyCampus.

It will be interesting to see if any other colleges follow in TSU’s tracks. How will websites like JuicyCampus function in the future if they continue to get blocked, or if the laws change?

For more information on JuicyCampus, check out this article for ABC News featuring ReputationDefender CEO Michael Fertik.

Bookmark It

Wanted: Good men and women to serve as a part of a historic Presidential administrative team. Must be a team player and able to handle pressure. Familiarity with deadlines essential, complex screening process applies. Equal Opportunity Employer.

On the heels of the Obama campaign being swept into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue there have been a lot of job slots opening up. Some are newly created, others are being vacated as the Bush administration heads out and Obama moves in. In both cases bodies are needed to fill the seats. But not just any bodies. Barack Obama is very aware of the Internet and how it can help and hinder a cause. Given this, it should come as no surprise to anyone that he is being VERY thorough about who gets a spot on the “O” team.

The process begins with a seven-page questionnaire that has been sent by the office of the President-elect to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts. The New York Times has commented that this process may be the most extensive (“some say invasive”) application ever.

And just what does those questions cover? 63 requests for personal and professional records, for starters, covering the applicants’ spouses and grown children as well. Good luck for speeders (sort of): traffic tickets with fines of less than $50 do not need not be reported, but anyone with a family member in the NRA take note, the application asks whether the applicant or anyone in their family owns a firearm.

While all of this is interesting from a political standpoint, what really caught our eye was the provision that all applicants must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages. As we have noted before on this blog, Obama is the Internet President, and he is covering his digital bases. The application goes on further to ask for applicants to “list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”

Of course the competition for a job in the White House has always been high, even if you weren’t gunning for Commander-In-Chief. The vetting process has been modified and added on to with each incoming administration, but Mr. Obama has taken his background hunts to a new level, especially with regards to applicants’ family members. The Obama camp stands behind their process, though, stating “President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that.”

With the economy large in many Americans’ minds, the Obama campaign has sought to minimize any potential red flags in their hiring by avoiding hot topics like Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Question 18 of the Obama application asks the applicant whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” has been affiliated with either of the two failed mortgage institutions, as well as American International Group, Washington Mutual or any other institution getting a piece of the government bailout.

Remembering the trouble that Bill Clinton got into back in the early 90s, immigration status is questioned in the “Domestic Help” section that covers housekeepers, nannies, chauffeurs and yard-workers. Beyond that, applicants are requested to supply not only a résumé, but every résumé and biographical statement they’ve used in the last decade.

Oh yeah, and while you’re at it, the application requires the names of anyone an applicant has lived with, a chronological list of activities for which they were paid, documentation of real estate and loans over $10,000, and net worth statements submitted for loans. Furthermore, applicants must report all businesses that they and/or their spouses have been affiliated with and all gifts over $50 that they and their spouses have received from anyone other than close friends or relatives.

The catch all, though is at the end: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”

The message is clear. While Barack Obama understood the power of the internet to raise money and spread his message of change, he is also aware of how the internet can adversely affect people in the digital age.

Bookmark It

Two former officers of the police force in Durham, North Carolina are being investigated for alleged derogatory, and potentially racist, Web postings. While the details are not clear yet, the Chief of Police in Durham has stated that a “racial slur” is not the subject of the investigation, but this has done little to quell the outcry from civil rights groups.

The postings were allegedly on the officers’ MySpace or Facebook pages, according to the NAACP, which is calling on the local police to release copies. “We want to know if there will be transparency about those comments to the community and what disciplinary action if any will be taken against these officers,” Durham’s NAACP president Fred Foster Jr. told a local newspaper. “We believe that if these comments are against people of color, then it will be hard for those officers to serve and protect without prejudice and that they should not be allowed to wear the uniform representing public trust.”

By now stories of an Internet posting, meant to be private or not, coming back to haunt the poster are becoming quite commonplace. Seems that some people are just now learning of the reach of the Internet. Of course, any story like this, dealing with a betrayal of trust, abuse of power or display of bias receives even more attention when it is allegedly committed by a law enforcement officer (or any person in a real position of power, for that matter). Whether these charges prove to be true or not remains to be seen, but in the mean time remember that no one is immune from the Internet, and what you do there can (and most likely will) come back to you some day.

Bookmark It

If you are the least bit net savvy, you are likely familiar with Craigslist. The widely used website, which offers leading classified ad services, is active in over 500 cities worldwide and has been an Internet stalwart for over 10 years. But, for the millions of people who have used Craigslist to find an apartment, sell their old furniture or other conventional tasks, there has been a percentage of users who turned to the site for something far more provocative.

Notorious on the net for its “Erotic Services” feature, Craigslist has become a flourishing high-tech tool for the world’s oldest profession. Offering customers anything from a simple massage to an escort for the night, prostitutes have been able to use the website to arrange jobs with ease - much to the chagrin of law enforcement. Also, despite their best efforts, because of the frequency and sheer volume of the postings, there was little the Craigslist team could do to help.

Which all explains why Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, recently presented Craigslist with a letter demanding the site develop more stringent measures to curb the illegal content. As explained in this New York Times article, the letter, which represented the interests of 40 states, led to ongoing discussions between the parties, ultimately resulting in Craigslist implementing a new series of policies for their erotic services section.

So what’s the lesson from an Online Reputation Management perspective? Quite simply, if you don’t monitor content on your site, the government might end up doing it for you. As the courts and justice system continue to monitor technological advances, expect more regulation of online content from the government in the future.

Bookmark It

ReputationDefender Blog has learned that the United States Chess Federation is suing a board member over stolen email and defamatory posts made online. Quoting from the New York Times:

[image]

The United States Chess Federation, the nation’s governing body for the game, has sued one of its board members, claiming she unlawfully gained access to e-mail between some members of the board and a lawyer hired to investigate accusations against her and her husband.

The lawsuit stems from a running battle in which the aggression of elite-level chess play has manifested itself in the struggle over control of the federation.

In October 2007, the board member, Susan Polgar, and her husband and fellow board member, Paul Truong, were sued by Samuel H. Sloan, a former board member. He accused Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong of posting thousands of remarks in his name, many defamatory or obscene, on public Internet bulletin boards over a two-year period in an effort to win election to the board.

[SNIP]

While Mr. Sloan’s lawsuit was pending, the federation’s board created a subcommittee to investigate the suit’s claims, and it hired Karl S. Kronenberger, a lawyer in San Francisco, to oversee the investigation. The investigation concluded that Mr. Truong was responsible for the posts.

[SNIP]

In August, Ms. Polgar filed a lawsuit in Lubbock, Tex., against the federation, four of its board members and other members of the federation in which she claimed libel, slander and business disparagement. She is asking for $25 million.

E-venge can happen to any one. Even elite chess players politicking for a position in the United States Chess Federation can resort to slander and libel online. The fluid nature of Identity on the internet means that people have an interest in controlling their online personal brand since it is so easy to destroy.

Bookmark It

I used to see the Internet through rose-colored glasses. In theory, it’s a perfect communications tool. Unlike television or radio, which both require significant money to buy airtime, the Internet allows practically anyone the opportunity to contribute their ideas freely. Also unlike other media, the Internet allows for immediate feedback on ideas. This, in turn, helps strengthen and improve international discourse. I mean, what could be better than that?

Naturally, after actually spending time on the Internet, my optimistic ideals were crushed faster than it takes to get Rickrolled.

It turns out that, in order to have a productive and socially beneficial Internet, people have to not act like jerks. Unfortunately, this simply cannot be so. If you don’t believe me, just head to any forum or comment thread at CNN or FOXNews.

[image via]

But why is this? What is it about the Internet that makes people turn from presumably normal upstanding citizens to rabid, ALL CAPS writing cyber bullies? According to a recent article at CNN, the answer is simple: on the Net, nobody knows your name.

Quoting from the article:

“In the [pre-Internet era], you had to take ownership [of your remarks]. Now there’s a perception of anonymity,” said Lesley Withers, a professor of communication at Central Michigan University. “People think what they say won’t have repercussions, and they don’t think they have to soften their comments.”

Contrast that with a face-to-face conversation, or even a phone conversation, where you can judge people’s moods from facial movements or vocal inflections, observes University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman. 

“It’s hard to be aggressive when you’re face to face,” he said.

Moreover, he points out, aggression often carries a subtext of power.

“A lot of times, real anger is an attempt to get control over a situation where the person doesn’t usually have it,” he said. In that respect, comments to blog posts are attempts to strike back.

The story goes on to discuss how this problem is especially common among teen girls, citing the tragic story of Megan Meier which has been covered at ReputationDefender Blog in the past.

Those power games are innately grasped by children and teens, with schools serving as a perennial social laboratory.

Cheryl Dellasega, a Penn State women’s studies professor, ticks off hypothetical examples that could have come straight from the scripts to “Mean Girls” or “Heathers.”

“Girls who are getting teased come home and let their [aggressors] have it by putting something on their blog and starting a rumor campaign,” she said. And instead of rumors simply making the rounds among peer groups — which can be bad enough — “they go out to a much bigger group, a worldwide group. The impact is devastating, and it’s as easy as clicking a button.”

“Kids don’t realize that one post can destroy somebody’s life forever,” she added.

While we should remain hopeful that fair and responsible Internet use will become the norm, it is important to be realistic and take proactive measures to protect our identities online. This is why ReputationDefender offers its customers Life Insurance for the Internet™ through its variety of industry leading products.

Bookmark It

This story is a little old, in terms of Internet news cycles, but it is noteworthy nonetheless.

It seems that Google has been running anti-Prop 8 ads on its affiliate networks, against the tenets of its own published advertising policies. To wit, the policy states:

Don’t promote violence or advocate against a protected group.Ad text advocating against any organization, person, or group of people is not permitted.Advertisements and associated websites may not promote violence or advocate against a protected group. A protected group is distinguished by their:  Race or ethnic origin, Color, National origin, Religion, Disability,  Sex,  Age, Veteran status, Sexual orientation/Gender identity.

Pretty straightforward (no pun intended), but yet the ads are still there. What gives? Has Google gone evil? Turns out the story is a little but more complicated and capitalistic. A spokesperson for Google, Diana Adair, has stated the company’s position as such: “Google allows ads that advocate for a particular political position regardless of the views that they represent. We currently allow ads advocating both for and against Proposition 8.”

If you are diligent you may wish to read these relevant bits pertaining to Google’s views on Political Advertising. I’ll save you the legwork:

Political advertising is allowed. We permit political advertisements regardless of the political views they represent. Stating disagreement with or campaigning against a candidate for public office, a political party, or public administration is generally permissible.However, political ads must not include accusations or attacks relating to an individual’s personal life, nor can they advocate against a protected group.

But just what constitutes a protected group, legally? Well, if you click on the link for protected groups you end up back at the Advertising Policies page (see supra), which implies that Google is violating its own policies.

Now, it is easy to take pot shots at the Big G. Everyone loves to see the mighty fall. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, and all that. But what, really, can be made of this interesting little incident? It seems apparent, regardless of your position on Prop 8, that Google has, for the time being, suspended the “Don’t be evil” campaign (and civil rights along with it) to rake in some more ad money. If you’re prone to speculation (and this is Silicon Valley, where we are) you might be looking at the sinking economy and a company’s change of tune as not just a coincidence. Is Google seeking to shore up some funds? We know they cut back on their snacks, is this another sign of the tightening belt?

We won’t speculate on those matters, but it is worth pointing out Google’s direct contravention of its own policy. To which the question follows: What’s the point in having an ad policy that explicitly prohibits advocacy against protected minorities if you permit advocacy against those same minorities, provided the advocacy is vague with regard to overall intentions?

For instance, would Google permit Wal-Mart (let’s say) from running ads that advocated non-compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act? What if Wal-Mart just ran ads that supported legislature that would promote non-compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act? If Wal-Mart were to take out such an ad, then that would be advocacy against a protected class, but Google is attempting to defend itself under the guise that the ads are generic since they don’t specify what Prop 8 does.

This is a potentially slippery slope for Google. The really oddball thing is that despite this logic loophole in the advertising policy of the company, Google execs are campaigning for Obama, and they have publicly come out against Prop 8. How can Google come out against a Proposition that Google says isn’t advocating anything bad against gays? It is logically inconsistent, and there are several Greek philosophers spinning in Elysium.

Bookmark It

  [image via]

Media outlets are reporting that the recent suicide of South Korean actress Choi Jin-sil may be linked to internet rumors attacking and slandering the thespian. These rumors, called “cyber-terrorism” by South Korean authorities, alleged that Ahn Jae-hwan, another actor, had taken money from Choi to cover his financial troubles. Ahn Jae-hwan later committed suicide himself, and the internet blamed Choi’s loans as a contributing factor in his death. The Korean Times has more on this case:

South Korea’s iconic actress Choi Jin-sil was found dead at her home in what appears to be a suicide amid [internet] rumors that linked her to the recent death of another actor, Yonhap News reported quoting police Thursday. 

[SNIP]

Rumors have since circulated on the Web that Choi had lent a large sum of money to [actor, Ahn Jae-hwan], who was reportedly in deepening debt due to a failing business. Ahn’s financial troubles were seen as the chief factor leading up to his suicide.

Choi sought a police probe into the source of the rumors, calling them groundless. Police arrested a securities company employee this week for spreading the rumors that Choi lent 2.5 billion won ($2 million) to Ahn.

The Los Angeles Times has more. Quoting from the page:

The post about one of South Korea’s most beloved actresses surfaced in an online club for stock investors last month, days after an actor friend of hers committed suicide. The post went on to claim that the dead actor had owed Choi money.

The rumor was copied and spread widely over the next days, with online posters blaming Choi’s money lending for the actor’s death. Choi, a national sweetheart long admired for overcoming adversity, resented and strongly denied the rumor. She said she was “scared that the world distorts friendship.”

Less than two weeks later, Choi was found hanged in the bathroom of her house in Seoul, prompting some in the South Korean news media to point the finger at Internet gossipmongers, who were accused of driving the mother of two to take her life.

The piece weighs internet safety and free speech concerns when looking at how courts are to legislate the future of responsible, free speech on the internet.

Choi’s suicide came at a time when government officials are pushing to introduce new clauses in communication laws to enforce harsher punishment for cyber-insults. The country is also preparing to extend an existing law that requires Web service providers to confirm social security numbers and the real names of users.

[SNIP]

The idea of introducing a cyber-insult law is finding traction in the wake of Choi’s death, especially among the ruling party legislators  . . . [but] some worry that new laws could have a chilling effect on free speech.

ReputationDefender Blog has covered the link between anonymous hate speech and suicide before. Internet anonymity is responsible for driving a large part of internet culture, as well as the real world consequences associated with online actions. Interested readers are invited to view the ReputationDefender Blog posts on Meghan Meier and the Chicago Ad Executive for more on this emerging trend. It is clear that as the courts move to establish internet case law, they will have to pay attention to cases like these. ReputationDefender is a strong proponant of free and responsible speech.

Bookmark It

ReputationDefender Blog, recently ran into this Breitbart article on Digg that points to a recent military report that says Twitter could be used by terrorists.

A draft US Army intelligence report has identified the popular micro-blogging service Twitter, Global Positioning System maps and voice-changing software as potential terrorist tools. 

[SNIP]

“Extremist and terrorist use of Twitter could evolve over time to reflect tactics that are already evolving in use by hacktivists and activists for surveillance,” it said. “This could theoretically be combined with targeting.”

The report outlined scenarios in which militants could make use of Twitter, combined with such programs as Google Maps or cell phone pictures or video, to carry out an ambush or detonate explosives.

“Terrorists could theoretically use Twitter social networking in the US as an operation tool,” it said. “However, it is unclear whether that same theoretical tool would be available to terrorists in other countries and to what extent.”

Besides Twitter, the report examined the potential use by militants of Global Positioning Systems and other technologies.

Twitter is certainly changing the way people connect online, and, like all means of communication, can be used for good or for ill. ReputationDefender Blog has covered tweets before and you can check out ReputationDefender on Twitter for more web 2.0 connectivity.

Bookmark It

The Internet is a wonderful thing. From the way that it connects people all over the world to the wealth of information it provides, there has never been a form of media like it. But, for all of its positives, the Internet does have a dark side. As we’ve written about time and time again on the ReputationDefender Blog, the anonymity of the Internet, while providing opportunities to communicate freely, also fosters an environment where slander and defamation can occur with little recourse for victims. But that could change if a defamation lawsuit against Google India is successful.

The lawsuit filed by a Mumbai construction company seeks to reveal the identity of a blogger who posted allegedly defamatory language about the company. A Bombay High Court has ruled in agreement with the company and ordered Google to reveal the blogger’s identity. FYI - Google is involved because the blogger in question used Google’s free blogging service, Blogger.com. As of the writing of the article, Google had not revealed the blogger’s identity. If they were compelled to, however, it could set a significant precedent for the anonymity of Blogger users.

This case represents how, in the Internet age, the legal understanding of privacy and defamation are still unclear. Because courts are being asked to render opinions on Internet cases with laws written for a pre-digital world, every decision made is going to break new ground in internet case law.

Bookmark It

A new article on the style.com blog details a scary new threat to Internet privacy: Revenge Porn. The article discusses the new way that miffed lovers are turning to the Internet to extort and embarrass their exes, by using video uploading sites and social networks to post compromising photos and videos. Specifically, the stories of several relationships that went awry are highlighted, each showing a slight variation on a theme: couple gets together, tape/photos are made, relationship sours, tapes/photos resurface on the Internet somewhere.

J. W., 24, and T. K., 21, started dating in July 2007 while attending the University of Georgia. The relationship was a whirlwind: Soon after discovering each other on Facebook and hooking up, they moved in together and, according to W., bought a Great Dane and exchanged promise rings. But their union unraveled just as quickly as it had begun, and they broke up in January. Then things really went wrong.

Police say that after K. started dating another man in the spring, W. hacked into her MySpace account and, posing as her, sent bogus messages to her new boyfriend. W. also allegedly installed spyware on K.’s computer to monitor her Web use and eavesdrop on her online conversations, and stole the IDs and passwords she used to access certain websites. But the alleged act that precipitated the situation and may turn out to be W.’s undoing was his vengeful posting of nude photos of K. on his Facebook page.

W. was arrested in May, soon after the pictures appeared online, and charged with 32 misdemeanors, including 14 counts of computer theft, 14 counts of computer invasion of privacy, and an identity-fraud charge for his alleged impersonation of K. on MySpace. Currently free on $6,400 bond, W. is awaiting trial. “I don’t want to go to jail just because we had a bad breakup,” he told one reporter.

The interesting thing to note is how the pornographic material posting is only part of a larger group of crimes, something that we noted in all the profiles. It seems that once a vengeful person has their mind set to post some inflammatory images they are almost inevitably going to go a step further in breaching one’s Internet security. The other scary fact is located near the end of the article, namely that these types of crimes are difficult to prosecute:

Revenge porn is difficult to prosecute because there are no statutes specifically outlawing the practice. So what happens in a revenge-porn case, in effect, is that analog laws are applied to a digital offense. A prime example—in a case that has yet to be resolved—involves A. P., 17, of La Crosse, Wisconsin, and his 16-year-old ex. Police say P. posted two images of her on his MySpace page, one a full-frontal nude, the other a close-up of genitalia. P.’s ex-girlfriend, identified in police reports as HLK, had e-mailed him the photos when they were dating. But after she started seeing another guy, “TF,” P. turned to the Web. “Yo tell me this bitch deserves this!!!!!!!” he allegedly wrote in a caption accompanying the full-frontal photo. “TF gets my leftover’s to [sic] bad she’s fucked.”

P. was contacted by an officer from the Janesville Police Department, who warned the teenager to take down the photos. According to police reports, P. decided to leave them on his profile. “Fuck that,” he said, according to the same reports. “I am keeping them up.”

Alerted to the case, MySpace deleted P.’s entire page, and on May 28, P. pleaded not guilty in La Crosse County Circuit Court to charges of child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child, and defamation. A trial date has yet to be set.

From the gist of the article and just given the general tone of the Internet these days it seems inevitable that new laws will be passed to address this disturbing new phenomenon. Until legislation catches up with real life, these events serve as a kind of warning. Michael Fertik, ReputationDefender CEO, gives everyone some sound advice at the end of the article: “The best advice, of course, is to never, ever create sexual photos, videos, e-mails, text messages, or anything else that someone could keep and share in the future. You have to think of revenge porn almost like an STD: something that can only happen because of mixing sex with irresponsibility.”

Bookmark It

ReputationDefender Blog caught a story lighting up Digg today which was just too bizarre to pass up. The news piece related the trial of a 15-year old Ohio girl who was arrested on child pornography charges for sending nude pictures of herself to her classmates. If convicted, the girl could spend several years in a juvenile detention facility and could even be forced to register with the state sex offender list. What’s more, the students who received the pictures might also be charged for child pornography possession.

While you might not agree with the prosecutors decision to file felony child pornography charge against the girl, it is hard to disagree that these types of instances are rapidly increasing among teens. The question is, why? There are those who blame a culture where instantaneous fame and mainstream pornography, along with a healthy dose of irresponsible celebrity role models, have become the norm. Still others lay less blame on culture and more on teens who are simply unaware of the vast nature of the Internet and the consequences of their actions.

Whichever camp you fall in, this is just one more example of why Online Reputation Management is a critical tool to understand know and in the future. As the original innovators of the Online Reputation Management Industry, ReputationDefender will continue to be the leader in helping people remove unwanted personal information from the web and reclaim their good name.

Bookmark It

The ReputationDefender Blog caught an interesting piece of news from Ars Technica recently concerning social networking and freedom of speech: two areas right in our wheelhouse. The story deals with the fallout resulting from a MySpace prank two eighth-graders pulled on their principal. Apparently, the students created a fake MySpace profile with their school principal’s name and image. The profile, which was filled with crude and sexually charged language, became a talking point at school the following day. When the principal found the site and discovered the students who had created it, he suspended them for 10 days each.

What would seem like a routine story of two kids’ mischief catching up with them became much more involved however when the parents of one of the children filed a lawsuit against the school district alleging a violation of their child’s first amendment right to free speech. After hearing the arguments of the student’s attorney, namely that the student cannot be punished by the school for speech conducted outside of school, District Judge James Munley decided to rule in favor of the principal’s right to suspend the student. Citing the malicious nature of the profile, the Judge ruled that the attempt by the student was simply an attack on the principal and not a valid form of protected speech.

While there are many differing opinions as to the wisdom in Judge Munley’s decision, it is clear to everyone who follows issues of privacy and free speech that when it comes to the Internet, conventional laws are being challenged on a daily basis. In the meantime, ReputationDefender will continue to be study these types of cases and work to maintain its strong position as the undisputed leader in the Online Reputation Management Industry.

Bookmark It

Daniel J. Solove is a law professor and leading thinker in Online Reputation Management and Privacy issues. Professor Solove has appeared with ReputationDefender CEO Michael Fertik for media in the past and is well equipped at dealing with the confluence of law and technology.

Ars Technica recently reviewed his two works The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet and Understanding Privacy. Both the review itself and the works covered are well thought out pieces that address ReputationDefender’s core competancies: what will privacy and reputation look like in the digital age? We will quote in part from the page, but it is really worth reading the entire article.

Though Solove’s own avowed methodological preference is for a “bottom up” approach that proceeds from specific cases and controversies to more general conceptions, it’s probably easier to begin with the more abstract Understanding Privacy. It is, Solove laments, in sore need of some understanding, for despite an ever-growing theoretical literature, he argues that privacy remains “a concept in disarray” for the robed and the gowned alike.

The reason, Solove avers, is that scholars and judges have too often approached privacy by first developing an essentialist or reductivist definition of privacy, and proceeding from there to consider how specific cases fit into their rubric. The upshot, he says, has been a crude and dualistic conception of privacy interests that ill-fits either our colloquial use of the term “privacy” or our real-world expectations.

In the grips of what Solove calls the “secrecy paradigm,” for instance, courts have routinely held that once information is disclosed to anybody—albeit with implicit or even explicit guarantees of confidentiality—it is as though it had been disclosed to everyone. Thus you have no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in dialed telephone numbers you’ve transmitted to the phone company, or financial information you’ve provided to your bank.

This binary conception of privacy has also made courts reluctant to recognize any form of privacy harm other than disclosure—making public that which was previously private. Thus if you are photographed at an embarrassing moment on a public street, courts won’t generally find a privacy interest (as opposed to, perhaps, some intellectual property interest) at stake if that fleeting moment is frozen and disseminated on the Internet. Nor, in most cases, will they see any important qualitative distinction between “public” but widely dispersed and fragmented information, and the same information aggregated in one place, where all sorts of interesting inferences can be drawn from the juxtaposition of individually inert data points.

This last point is particularly important. As we exist more and more in media, our expectations of privacy are less and less. As more people become familiar with Online Reputation Management and defend their reputation online, concepts such as internet privacy will become more prominent in literature and media.

Bookmark It

As the leader in the Online Reputation Management Industry, ReputationDefender is often called upon to provide additional insight to news stories regarding issues of Internet privacy, social networking and online reputation management. So, when the Providence Journal came asking for an opinion on the much publicized drunk driving case of then 20-year old Joshua Lipton, ReputationDefender CEO Michael Fertik was more than happy to share his thoughts.

For those unfamiliar with the case of Joshua Lipton, here are the main facts. Lipton, after doing a bit of heavy drinking, was driving his car to the store to buy cigarettes when he slammed his vehicle into two other cars. Though Lipton was left uninjured, a passenger in one of the the other vehicles, Jade Combies, was not. During Lipton’s trial, this fact was driven home with a particularly dramatic point.

Just two weeks after the accident, while Combies was recovering from her substantial injuries in the hospital, Joshua Lipton was photographed at a Halloween party wearing a prison jumpsuit with the word “Jailbird” printed on it. The picture ended up on Facebook and, in no short time, into the hands of the prosecutor. As soon as the picture was shown to a jury, Lipton’s fate was sealed.

While ReputationDefender has no sympathy for the remarkably irresponsible and insensitive actions of Mr. Lipton, this story makes a compelling case for how significant a role your online identity can be in shaping opinions about your character. Thanks to massive search engines like Google and Yahoo, it’s easy for recruiters, college admissions officers and even blind dates to learn about you. As Michael Fertik advised in the Providence Journal article, “if you put it on the Internet, people are going to find it, and they will make decisions about you based on it” and that’s why it’s more important than ever to assume control of your online identity with ReputationDefender’s entire suite of products.

Bookmark It