Scherzer Blog

Scraping to find your real name

PeekYou.com has applied for a patent for a way to, among other things, match people’s real names to pseudonyms they use on blogs, Twitter and online forums. A statement on its patent application describes the invention as “a method for aggregating over a network, personal information available from public sources.”

PeekYou’s people-watch Web site offers records of about 250 million people, primarily in the U.S. and Canada. PeekYou says it also is starting to work with listening services to help them learn more about the people whose conversations they are monitoring. It claims to provide only demographic information, not names or addresses.

|Educational Series|

Social Security number (SSN) randomization to take effect in June 2011

The Social Security Administration (SSA) describes the SSN randomization as a forward-looking project to help protect the integrity of the Social Security number by establishing a new random assignment methodology. The SSA promises to still provide online services for direct SSN verifications, as follows:

SSA’s Social Security Number Verification Service – available to employers.
Department of Homeland Security’s eVerify Service – available to employers to determine employment eligibility.
SSA’s Consent-Based SSN Verification Service – available to enrolled private companies and government agencies for a fee.

Federal and state agencies will continue to maintain several SSN verification
systems, as outlined at http://www.ssa.gov/gix/eprojects.html.

|Educational Series|

FTC’s latest privacy initiatives

On December 1, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its long-awaited preliminary report on the protection of consumer privacy titled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers.” The FTC is seeking input on this proposal and intends to issue a final report sometime in 2011.

The report, which covers both online and offline data collection and use, reiterates certain concrete steps that the FTC believes organizations should take related to choice and transparency and also provides broad guidance that applies to all commercial entities that collect or use consumer data, including companies that do not interact directly with consumers, such as information brokers. The framework is not limited to personally identifiable information (PII); it applies to all consumer data that can be linked to a specific individual or to a computer or other device.

Focusing on new and growing threats to consumer privacy driven by innovations that rely on consumer data, the proposal outlines a three-step framework for data protection:

1) Privacy by Design – Organizations should integrate privacy concepts into every stage of the life-cycle of their products and services, develop marketing initiatives and data-sharing activities based on privacy guidance from the inception of such projects, and develop and maintain comprehensive information programs to protect and manage consumer data within the organization itself. Data security, reasonable collection limits, sound retention practices, and data accuracy are critical program components.

2) Choice – Organizations should offer clear and easy-to-use choice mechanisms at the point when the consumer is making a decision about his/her data, such as at the point of collection, implement a “do not track” mechanism, such as a persistent web browser setting that allows consumers to block all tracking of their online activities, obtain consumer consent before sharing data for marketing purposes with third parties or even with its affiliates if the affiliate relationship is not clear to consumers, and require enhanced consent for sensitive information, such as data about children, financial and medical information, and precise geolocation data.

3) Transparency – While privacy policies remain a critical tool for notifying consumers (and regulators) of an organization’s privacy practices, in general, most privacy polices need to be streamlined and simplified, and organizations must obtain consumer consent before implementing a change in policy that affects previously collected data. Organizations also should explore mechanisms for providing consumers with access to their data.

|Educational Series, Legislation|

Historical investment fraud sweep compels numerous civil and criminal actions

On December 6, 2010, the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force announced the conclusion of Operation Broken Trust, the largest investment fraud sweep ever conducted in the United Stated. Started August 16, 2010, the operation captured 343 criminal defendants and 189 civil defendants who were involved in fraud schemes that harmed more than 120,000 victims throughout the country. The criminal cases involved more than $8.3 billion in estimated losses and the civil cases more than $2.1 billion. Eighty-seven defendants have been sentenced to prison, including several who will serve more than 20 years.

The sweep focused on fraudsters who offered “investment opportunities” that were either completely fictitious or not structured as advertised. An overwhelming number of these were high-yield investment frauds and Ponzi schemes. Others involved commodities fraud, foreign exchange fraud, market manipulation (pump-and-dump schemes), real estate investment fraud, business opportunity fraud, and affinity fraud. Some of the perpetrators filed for bankruptcy in an attempt to avoid claims by victimized investors. In many instances, the criminals were trusted people within their communities—neighbors, co-workers, fellow church members—who betrayed that trust in order to line their own pockets.

|Criminal Activity, Fraud|

No background check was done on Michael Jackson’s doctor

Media sources reported that among several wrongful death lawsuits filed by the Jackson family, is a September 2010 action against event production company AEG Live and others alleging that they are responsible for the singer’s death because his “This Is It” tour contract with AEG created a legal duty to keep him healthy.

In its complaint, among other causes, the Jackson family accuses AEG of “negligent hiring” and retention of Dr. Conrad Murray to care for Jackson instead of his usual doctor. Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Murray with involuntary manslaughter, to which he pleaded not guilty. The doctor is accused of administering the drug Propofol to Jackson without the necessary resuscitation equipment or nursing support, and subsequently causing his death. The ‘Negligent Hiring’ cause of action in the complaint filed in Los Angeles County states:

“In undertaking to hire Murray, AEG performed absolutely no diligence in investigating or checking into Murray’s background, specialties, ability, or even whether he was insured, which it had a duty to do. In choosing to hire and employ a physician to treat Jackson, AEG undertook to act, and it needed to do so reasonably. AEG did not act reasonably and breached its duty.”

“During the course of Murray’s treatment, it became clear to AEG that Jackson was not doing well at all. AEG did nothing to terminate Murray and instead negligently retained him as an employee, and in so doing violated its duty of care. AEG insisted that Jackson continue treatment with Murray and receive no treatment from other physicians, a further breach of its duty of supervision.”

Along with negligent hiring, training and supervision, the complaint calls for unspecified damages for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. And in the most recent case filed November 30, 2010 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Joe Jackson is also claiming negligent hiring, training and supervision and negligence by the Murray-affiliated clinics and negligence against the pharmacy (and Murray.) A similar suit filed this past June did not include the pharmacy, and was dismissed.

Shortly after Michael Jackson’s death, ABC News reported that Murray was arrested on domestic violence charges in 1994 after an incident with his then-girlfriend. The doctor was tried and acquitted. When a company fails to conduct a background check, the employer can be held legally liable for a worker, independent contractor or volunteer who causes injury to a customer, co-worker or the general public. Whether the individual was acting within the capacity of the job for which he/she was hired does not matter. The legal theory is that even if an employer did not possess direct knowledge of the liability posed by an employee, the company is legally responsible because the employer should have known about the threat presented by the individual. Currently, fewer than 50% of the states uphold the doctrine of negligent hiring, and the criteria for determining negligent hiring differ from state to state.

|Criminal Activity, Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Lawsuit|

More on credit reports for hiring decisions

According to September 2010 congressional testimony by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), credit checks are a useful tool to “assess the skills, abilities, work habits and integrity of potential hires.” However, SHRM states that only 20 percent of employers conduct credit checks on all applicants. Fifty-seven percent of these employers perform the checks only after contingent offers, and 30 percent after job interviews; 65 percent allow job candidates to explain their credit results before the hiring decision is made, and 22 percent accept explanations after the hiring decision.

A bill in the U.S. House, called the Equal Employment for All Act, would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to ban the use of credit checks on prospective and current employees for employment purposes, with the following exceptions:

jobs that require national security or Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. clearance;
jobs in state or local government that require the use of credit reports;
supervisory, managerial, and executive positions in financial institutions.

The states of Illinois, Oregon, Hawaii, and Washington already have passed laws to prevent employers from using credit reports in employment decisions.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Massachusetts employers cannot ask about criminal history on initial job applications

As of November 4, 2010, Massachusetts employers are prohibited from asking about criminal records on the initial job application, except for positions for which a federal or state law, regulation or accreditation disqualifies an applicant based on a conviction, or if the employer is mandated by a federal or state law or regulation not to employ
individuals who have been convicted of a crime.

The new law also has two provisions that will become effective February 6, 2012. Under the first provision, an employer in possession of criminal record information must disclose that information to the applicant, prior to asking about it. And similar to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, if an employer decides not to hire an
applicant in whole or in part because of the criminal record, the employer must provide the applicant with a copy of the record.

The second provision requires employers who conduct five or more criminal background investigations annually to implement and maintain a written criminal record information policy. The policy, at minimum, must specify procedures for (1) notifying applicants of the potential for an adverse decision based on the criminal record, (2) providing
a copy of the criminal record and the written policy to applicants, and (3) dispensing information to applicants about the process for correcting errors on their criminal record.

The law imposes penalties (including imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a company) for those who request or require an applicant to provide a copy of his/her criminal record except under conditions authorized by law, and prohibits harassment of the subject of the criminal record (punishable by imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of not more than $5,000.)

|Criminal Activity, Educational Series, Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Corporate misconduct can preclude directors from serving on other boards

Due diligence on current and prospective board directors should extend not only to the legal liability exposure but also to the possibility of losing valuable opportunities for board membership at other firms,” said Jason Schloetzer, assistant professor of accounting at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and author of The Conference Board Report. “In the current litigation environment, it is particularly important for the board to demonstrate to shareholders and the judicial system that any failure to prevent or discover corporate misconduct took place in spite of the rigorous performance by the board of its oversight duties, including the establishment of a state-of-the-art compliance program.”

The Conference Board Report, released November 4, 2010, analyzed the changes in directorships held by outside board members of 113 public companies involved in shareholder class-action lawsuits that alleged misrepresentation of information to investors. The study, encompassing the period of 1996 to 2005, tracked directorship changes for three years after the start of litigation and used data from proxy statements to identify director turnover.

Within three years of litigation, 83.2% of outside directors remained on the board of the public company involved in the lawsuit, the study found. Related research showed that outside directors in firms involved in litigation did not appear to turn over any more frequently than the average among all outside directors. However, outside directors whose companies were involved in litigation experienced reduced opportunities to serve on other companies’ boards. The average number of board seats held by these individuals at other companies dropped from 0.95 in the year prior to the litigation to 0.47 three years after the suit was filed.

|Criminal Activity, Educational Series|

Supreme court ruling may ban consumer class-action lawsuits

A case that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow, AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion, may potentially ban consumers from filing class-action lawsuits. The basic question that will be decided is whether companies can bar class-actions in the fine print of their take-it-or-leave-it contracts with customers (and employees.)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that a class-action ban violates state law and is not preempted by federal law; the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower-court ruling last year.

If a majority of the nine justices vote AT&T’s way, any business that issues a contract to customers — such as for credit cards, cell phones or cable TV — would be able to prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits. Class-actions allow plaintiffs to band together in seeking compensation or redress, thus giving more substance to their claims.

And the banning of class-actions may potentially apply to employment agreements such as union contracts…

|Judgment, Lawsuit|

Green-energy scams put portfolios in the red

The emerging green-energy market has created a horde of fraudsters. So many, in fact, that late last year, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) warned about schemes that promise large gains from investments in companies that pitch alternative, renewable or waste-to-energy products. And in May of this year, the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) followed with its own alert about potential scams that exploit the Gulf oil spill and related cleanup efforts.

The green-energy get-rich-quick schemes are showing up in blog posts, e-mail, infomercials, Internet message boards, text messages, and Twitter. As with most investment scams, all promise unrealistic returns, such a 200 percent stock gain by a solar panel company, a one-in-a-million deal to get a “51 times” return on current stock value from a China wind-power enterprise, and a 500 percent one week stock gain by a hydrogen-based energy outfit.

Of course, the regulators are on the lookout for the scammers. In one recently filed case, the SEC charged that promoters of eco-friendly investment opportunities lured 300 investors into a $30 million Ponzi scheme, encouraging the participants to finance “green” initiatives of Mantria Corporation, including a purported “carbon negative” housing community in rural Tennessee and a “bio-char” charcoal substitute made from organic waste. Investors were promised returns ranging from 17 percent to “hundreds of percent” annually. But, according to the SEC’s complaint, Mantria did not generate any income from which such extraordinary returns could be paid.

As cautioned by the SEC, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico brought additional scam opportunities for cons promising financial gains from investments in companies that claim to be involved in the cleanup operations. In May and June 2010, the SEC suspended the trading in shares of ACT Clean Technologies Inc. of Huntington Beach, CA, and Green Energy Resources, Inc. of New York, NY, because, among other issues, questions arose about the accuracy and adequacy of the publicly disseminated information by the companies.

To dodge green-energy investment scams (and other frauds) investigate before investing! And:

Never rely solely on information contained in an unsolicited communication.
Find out who sent the investment recommendations; many companies and individuals that tout stocks are paid by the company being promoted.
Examine the fine print for any statements indicating payments in cash or in stock for issuing the report or message.
Find out where the stock trades. Most unsolicited recommendations involve stocks that do not meet the listing requirements of the major stock exchanges; they are usually quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board or in the Pink Sheets, which do not impose minimum qualitative standards. Many of the OTC or Pink Sheets stocks trade infrequently which can make shares difficult to sell. When these stocks do trade, they may fluctuate in price very rapidly.
Read the company’s SEC filings to verify information.
Exercise skepticism and be wary of any pitch that suggests immediate pay-offs, especially if the investment involves a start-up company or a product or service that is still in development.

|Educational Series, Green Technology|