A Warning Regarding Your Digital Life - Social Media Quizzes

With social isolation and quarantining the norm, social media usage is on the rise.  People are home, connected to the internet, and looking for ways to entertain and distract themselves.  And with that, particular types of social media activity are on the rise.  Celebrities reading.  Music and singing.  And quizzes.  Lots and lots of quizzes.

The five names that you go by.

The five jobs that you've had.

Favorites.

Graduation pictures.

So many types of quizzes, that they make you pause a bit and wonder what the end of this is.  Then you see reminders like this -

Or even this,


And they are right.  The vast majority of the types of things that are asked for in these questions come up as security questions for your bank account, your credit card, your email, your online bills, etc., etc., etc.

By engaging in all of these quizzes, you are putting out so much personal information that can be used to get around any passwords that you may have on your most sensitive data.  Click on forgot password, hope for a security question by-pass, and viola.

I get it, these are fun ways to engage in social media.  It's fun to learn more about your friends.  It's fun to connect in someway virtually.  But you have to be careful about the ways you do so.

Make sure your accounts have two-factor authentication - i.e. make sure that when you log on you have to input a code from a text or email that you receive.  Text is best because it is most likely you will be the only person with access to your phone.

Limit who you are friends with or interact with on social media.  Only accept friend requests from people that you know.  That you could ask to confirm they were the one to send you the request.

Really evaluate the types of content that you are putting out there.  What private information are you sharing.  Be very selective about what you share.

You have to be careful about what is put online.  It can exist forever, it can be used against you, it can come back to harm you.  It's a great tool, but it is a potentially dangerous one.

That will be the theme of the next few posts.  A series of posts on potential quarantine dangers, focusing on that challenges of each, and why they are particularly harmful in this time.

Conspiracy Theories
Misinformation
Gaslighting

Each are serious issues facing our ability to get through this time together and to minimize casualties.  Each will require recognition and our vigilance online to combat them.

Be safe, be smart.

A Warning Regarding Your Digital Life - FaceApp and Terms of Service

It's time to issue another warning regarding our digital lives.  This time it relates to a third party app called FaceApp that is booming on social media.  The app gives faces in photographs digital makeovers, like changing hairstyles and making the subject look younger, like the opposite sex, and in the most recent social media meme, older.

The app was developed by a Russian company called Wireless Lab and has been on the market since January 2017.  It previously came under fire for allegations that it lightened the skin of black people. Currently, the company is under scrutiny for clauses in their terms of service.

You know, that thing you never read, but check a box saying you agree to.  The really fine print, that is difficult for lawyers to even digest and understand at times.   The thing that comes with every app and piece of software used on your digital devices.

This current controversy surrounding FaceApp started from a tweet suggesting that FaceApp uploads ALL of the photos on the device you are using to the cloud, to their servers in Russia.  That would be alarming.  After all, you do have to give the app access to your photos.  

FaceApp has denied the claim and multiple security researchers have confirmed this is not the case.  The app takes only the photo you ask it to manipulate and says it deletes most images from its servers within 48 hours of uploading.  You can also ask FaceApp to remove all your data from its servers by sending a request within the app.  Go to Settings > Support > Report a bug, and put “Privacy” in the subject line.

The terms of service do grant FaceApp a lot of rights to the photos that users upload, including to use and keep, as well as potential sale and distribution, etc., but they do not apply to everything on your phone or tablet.   

That does not mean you don’t have a right to be suspicious or to be cautious regarding what you are sharing through third party apps.  In fact, I would argue you need to be completely vigilant in everything you share on applications and extensions on your devices.  

Let’s take for example Facebook.  With its terms of services, you are allowing facial recognition to be applied to photos that users upload on the app.  You are agreeing to a a "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and applications settings).”

This means Facebook can do whatever with they want with everything you post, upload, share, etc.  And despite whatever viral post you may have seen, putting them on notice in a post in their app offers absolutely no protection.  So, the post that goes “Don’t forget tomorrow starts the new Facebook rule where they can use your photos” and ends “FACEBOOK DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO SHARE PHOTOS OR MESSAGES,” that’s a meaningless hoax.  You already gave them that permission when you joined the site.  If you want to revoke it, delete your account.

Should you do that, here is what Facebook says will happen:

“When you delete your account, people won’t be able to see it on Facebook.  It may take up to 90 days from the beginning of the deletion process to delete all of the things you’ve posted, like your photos, status updates or other data store in backup systems.  While we are deleting this information, it is inaccessible to other people using Facebook.

Some of the things you do on Facebook aren’t stored in your account.  For example, a friend may still have messages from you even after you delete your account.  That information remains after you delete your account”

Notice it says that others on Facebook won’t be able to see your information, but it says nothing about what Facebook will still have access to.

Concerned?  You should be.  Let's be honest, we have no idea what we are agreeing to most of the time we add an app or access a quiz/app on the web.  

The best strategy is to remain vigilant about what you post, upload, and grant access to.  When an app asks to have access to your location, your photos, your microphone, etc., think about whether you really want to be giving that access away.  For example, Jamie cut her hair short recently, but did no searching regarding the subject.  She started seeing ads for how to style short hair immediately after discussing it.  Google on her phone has access to her microphone.

I mean, it's not paranoia when they are really out to get you. 

When Speech is Unacceptable

At what point is speech unacceptable in any form?

That is one of the underlying questions in the Kyle Kashuv-Harvard controversy.

For those of you who have not kept up with the events surrounding the controversy, Kyle Kashuv is a recent graduate of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and a survivor of the 2018 shooting at the school.  Like several of his classmates, he became famous in the days following the shooting for his activism.  His activism, though, ran in stark contrast to many of his classmates, as he became known for opposing gun control measures after the attack.  

Kashuv became the high school outreach director for the conservative group Turning Point USA and lobbied in favor of a federal “school safety” bill that attempts to address the school shooting problem without gun control.  In particular, he has become a conservative Twitter darling, with more than 300,000 followers.  

As a graduate, Kashuv had hoped to get into his first choice for college - Harvard University.  And his extracurriculars, together with excellent grades and a high SAT score, earned him admission to the prestigious university.  In late May though, a series of offensive comments he made roughly two years ago came to light, prompting Harvard to initiate a formal review of his admission.  

According to the comments reported to Huffington Post, reportedly acquired by other Marjory Stoneman Douglas students, Kashuv made racist comments in a collaborative Google Doc and in text messages.  In the Google Doc, Kashuv typed a racial slur over and over again, even commenting that “im really good at typing ni**er ok like practice uhhhhhh makes perfect.”  In the text messages, he seemed to demean a female classmate by saying she only “goes for ni**erjocks,”  suggesting that she would prefer such black men sexually to a “pasty jew.”

After the comments were reported by the Huffington Post in May, Kashuv distanced himself from the comments, arguing that the comments did not reflect any specific animus towards black people on his part, instead reflecting merely “using callous and inflammatory language to be as extreme and shocking as possible.”  Further, he stated that the comments happened before the Parkland shooting, which transformed the way he sees the world and made him “embarrassed by the petty, flippant kid represented in those screenshots.”  In this initial statement, he omitted an unequivocal apology.  

He would later include a more forthright apology in his email to Harvard’s diversity office.  “I am deeply sorry for my comments,” he wrote in that letter.  “There is always more I can do to understand and learn about the struggle and pain of minority communities in America and worldwide."

After the publication of the story in Huffington Post, Harvard began an inquiry into Kashuv’s comments.  Following the investigation, William Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s dean of admissions, sent Kashuv a letter on June 3, saying that Harvard “takes seriously the quality of maturity and moral character,” and that “after careful consideration the [Admissions] Committee voted to rescind your admission to Harvard College.”  Kashuv tried to appeal to no avail.  On Monday morning, June 17, 2019, Kashuv tweeted out the letter from the university, igniting a firestorm in conservative circles.

By Monday afternoon, his name was trending nationally on Twitter.  Conservative media went all out with allegations of liberal bias in academia and the dangerous power of social media.  Ben Shapiro, prominent right-wing pundit, accused Harvard of setting up “an insane, cruel standard no one can possibly meet,” citing the incident as evidence that “our universities may be irrevocably broken."

I'm not sure about the "insane, cruel standard no one can possibly meet."  I think you could find a lot of students who do not have any racists comments documented in their past.  But maybe that's just me.  But, the controversy does raise a few questions.  Among those raised online and in the news are ones regarding free speech, liberal bias in academia, racism, and forgiveness.  

First, we can dispose of any free speech concerns.  There is no action by the government; the First Amendment is not implicated.  Harvard is a private institution and can do as it pleases in admissions (so long as it does not implicate prohibited classes - race, sex, religion, etc.).  As for liberal bias in admissions, conservative ideology is not a protected class, and even if Harvard is choosing only liberal leaning students and completely blocking conservative leaning students, it would be perfectly legal.  Though it would be damaging for  society as a whole, it would still be permissible.  We do not need to go this far, though, as Kashuv was admitted to Harvard, and was only denied admission when his racist comments were brought to light.

The issue of racism becomes very complicated.  The Vox article on the controversy contains a good summary of the problem, pointing out how the right and the left have different views on racism and how to address it.  Conservatives view racism as a personal failing, seen as a set of explicitly held ideas and beliefs that reflect outright animus toward a group of people.  It is corrected by repudiating it and striving to not let race affect the way you speak and act.  In this worldview, the real threat isn’t the comments, but the impulse to punish people for them, preventing them from having room to grow and change.

Liberals and leftists see racism as a structural problem, reflected in institutions and deeply ingrained biases that lead even people who firmly believe in the ideals of equal treatment to act or speak in prejudiced ways.  This makes addressing the problem a work of great societal work, effort, and vigilance.  It also puts the emphasis on stopping the statements themselves, in whatever form they take, as a symptom of the greater problem.  After all, even “ironic” racism, like the kind used to shock and outrage, is still racism.

The tragedy of the divide between the viewpoints, is that racism is both.  It is both a personal failing and a societal ill, that needs to be addressed on a personal level by repudiation and on a societal level by changing the ingrained biases and making certain speech and actions unacceptable.

Harvard has arguably tried to address the societal issue by having a zero tolerance policy.  Kashuv is not the first student to have been denied previously granted admission based on offensive statements in their past.  In 2017, Harvard rescinded 10 other students’ admissions after it found out they were participating in a Facebook group that involved swapping racist and anti-semitic memes.  These 10 kids weren’t celebrities, they weren’t Twitter darlings, they didn’t have national visibility.  This makes Kashuv’s denial appear to be merely a continuation of the policy already in affect.  Not a targeted denial in any form.

The bigger question surrounds the personal failing and any repudiation Kashuv may have undertaken, and this is where it gets sticky.  Kashuv’s initial response to the story regarding his past comments included a statement that he did not have a specific animus, that he was just trying to be outrageous, and that the Parkland shooting transformed him in a way to be embarrassed by those statements, but stopped short of making an apology for the statements.  Such an initial statement can be seen as someone dodging responsibility for the statements while refusing to address or apologize for it except when threatened with losing something he wants (as he did when Harvard communicated the denial).   This kind of viewpoint would raise questions about the sincerity of any repudiation.  

Further, there have been a lot of commentary regarding holding two year old statements against him, as if they had no bearing.  This is not a “when I was young and foolish, I did young and foolish things” scenario.  These statements would have been made during his application process, evidence of contemporaneous thoughts reflecting his beliefs at the time.  There may have been an intervening event leading to a change of heart, but as discussed above, his statements following the reveal can be seen as more of an issue with being caught than a change of mind and heart.

So whether Kashuv deserves any sympathy or whether his lack of admission to Harvard is a great injustice, it’s hard to say.  But it does point to a problem that has the potential to be a great issue going forward.  As we continue to put more and more digital content out there into the world, there is more and more opportunity for it to be used against us.  And with the racial makeup of the United States and the tensions that still exist, this is just a small snapshot of what can happen in the future.   Joel Anderson of Slate put it, “So many more people can relate to calling someone a ’ni**er’ than being called ’ni**er.’”  

From here, there are several important lessons that can be learned, with two specific lessons that I would like to discuss.  

First, it is important to have control over what is put out for public consumption.  Ultimately, while there are many things about your digital life that you cannot control (thank you Cambridge Analytica), what you put in email, what you put on Facebook, what you put on Twitter, what photos you take and share, those are all choices fully in your control.  The privacy settings that you can adjust on your social media accounts are all in your hands.  Who you choose to friend or follow on social media, or more importantly to allow to follow you, is in your control.  Remember to take control of these things.  Be cognizant and conscientious regarding what you share and with whom.  Only friend and follow people you know and trust and interact with on social media, particularly those you could discuss in person or over the phone to confirm.  

Once information is out there, it is being used in ways you cannot imagine.  Interviewers look over the Facebook pages of interviewees and evaluate their fit for the company based on what they see in addition to the interview.  Colleges look at the pages of their applicants.  Any number of places can comb over your profiles to present background information on you.  A little Big Brother that we have all agreed to.  And accordingly, there is a benefit to being a little paranoid regarding what you have as your digital footprint.  

Particularly due to point number two.

Second, for something intangible, digital traces are surprisingly permanent.   Whatever you tweet, whatever you post, it is still very easy to find it online.  Screenshots, images, backups all still exist.  It does not matter what social media platform you discuss, the result is still the same whether it is Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or even Snapchat where the message was supposed to exist for only six seconds.  All it takes is one person to screen capture the message before it deletes and it can exist forever.  

This is the problem with sending nude pictures, particularly among underage students.  The kids do not realize that the pictures can be shared, can exist forever, can come back to haunt them for years regardless of how they were shared in the first place.  This does not even get into the potential child pornography issues that arise through the sharing of such photographs.  Again, all it takes is one person to save and share and you have a scandal.

The files on your computer are likewise very, very difficult to destroy.  Even if you "delete" them, even if you run a purge program, even if you wipe the hard drive, they still likely exist in some form.  To clean a hard drive, you really need to soak it in bleach, run it over with a powerful magnet, burn it, beat it repeatedly with a sledgehammer, and submerge it in a lake for a few weeks.  Even then, forensics might still be able to recover parts of it.

So, BE CAREFUL what you put on your computer.  BE CAREFUL what you put in email.  BE CAREFUL what you post on social media.  BE CAREFUL what you put out there into the world.  And be EXTRA careful who you give access to it.

That joke you think is funny to post now could end your career down the road.  That attempt to be shocking and provocative may be decried as offensive.  The strongly held belief you have now may be something that you cringe at in the future and could likewise mean the end of a career or relationship.  That act you thought would be funny to video and share today may be something that is actionable in the future.

While these services help us keep a record of our lives, memories that popup in our feed, we forget they are also keeping an evidentiary record of our statements, actions, and beliefs.  And we are seeing more and more that it can and will be used against us.

Be safe out there.

A Further Warning Regarding Your Digital Life

I've blogged on this topic before, but in light of recent events, it bears repeating.  It is probably a topic I will come back to often, as it is one of the most important reminders that we can give regarding how we live our lives in the modern age.

As an avid comic and pop culture fan, I've been following the news from San Diego Comic Con.  In sorting through the news articles, one of them gave me pause.

James Gunn exits Guardians of the Galaxy 3 after offensive tweets resurface.

For those of you who don't know who I am talking about, James Gunn is an offbeat director that Marvel Studios had hired to helm their Guardians of the Galaxy franchise, to much surprise and success.  James Gunn, at the time, was considered a surprising choice as he previously been associated with work on schlock films for Troma and offbeat cult films like Super and Slither.  And given his association with those type of films, concerns about his type of humor were raised.  Gunn apologized, and the issue seemed to disappear.  And the movie about a little heard of group of superheroes by an offbeat director went on to be a smashing success.  Its sequel did pretty well itself.  Gunn was fast-tracked to helm Vol. 3, announced before the second film was even in wide release.  The films were a success largely due to the uniqueness of Gunn's writing, direction, and soundtrack choices.  Put simply, they were fun.

The news from Friday reveals that Gunn was let go due to offensive jokes from several years ago (at least six years plus) in Gunn's Twitter feed, which were brought to the attention of the Walt Disney Company.  "The offensive attitudes and statements discovered on James' Twitter feed are indefensible and inconsistent with our studio's values, and we have severed our business relationship with him,"  Walt Disney Studios chairman Alan Horn said in a statement.

Make no mistake, the tweets are horribly offensive. I would not search them out unless you have an appreciation for the blackest humor on pedophilia, AIDS, the Holocaust and rape.  They are attempts to be provocative in the way that only an immature teenage boy would find funny.

It is also important to note that they are attempts at humor, no matter how bad the taste, they are from over six years ago, and they reflect a style of humor that Gunn no longer uses and an outlook on life that he never possessed.  They are things he has already apologized for and sought to grow from.

And while we can argue as to whether these type of jokes are ever really acceptable, we must recognize that this type of humor has existed for ages.  That one purpose of humor is to voice the thing that should never be said.

These tweets were sought out and targeted by alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich and his followers, a key figure in the Gamergate and Pizzagate controversies.  (I also would not recommend digging too deeply into Cernovich on the web unless you want to be sufficiently nauseated).  Cernovich targeted Gunn because he believed Gunn was part of a Hollywood pedophilia ring and his tweets were used as evidence of that fact.  Cernovich ostensibly truly targeted Gunn because Gunn was an outspoken liberal and modern ally to the #MeToo and LGBTQ movements.  This is not the first person Cernovich has gotten fired, nor is the last person Cernovich will be targeting.

I mention all of this to remind everyone.  It doesn't matter if Gunn believes the statements or not, if Gunn stands by them, if they were attempts at humor, if they are raised as part of a smear campaign, or not.  Gunn is being fired because they exist.  And they exist in a medium where it is nearly impossible to completely erase them.  Even if he had deleted them in the past, someone could have still had a screen shot, someone still could have re-tweeted and kept a screen shot of that, they could be archived on the Internet Archive, etc.  There are a million ways that these tweets could keep popping up for years to come.  After all, given the date range, these tweets are in the Library of Congress.  Think about that for a while.

And now this current "outrage" will follow Gunn to any new project he may attempt.  New companies or financial backers are going to have to deal with these tweet, their existence and the controversy created around them in determining whether it is worth hiring or supporting Gunn.  Who knows how his career will fare or how long it will take before this scandal is a tempest in a teapot.  Before his apology can be accepted.

This should be a stark warning to everyone.  BE CAREFUL what you post on social media.  BE CAREFUL what you put out there into the world.  And be EXTRA careful who you give access to it.

That joke you think is funny to post now could end your career down the road.  The strongly held belief you have now may be something that you cringe at in the future and could likewise mean the end of a career or relationship.  That act you thought would be funny to video and share today may be something that is actionable in the future.

While these services help us keep a record of our lives, memories that popup in our feed, we forget they are also keeping an evidentiary record of our statements, actions, and beliefs.  And we are seeing more and more that it can and will be used against us.

Be safe out there.

A Warning Regarding Your Digital Life

Rosanne Barr recently jumped to the front page of the news by getting her show cancelled based on a racist tweet in which she described a former adviser to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, as the result if the "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby = vj."  Ms. Jarrett, though in the public spotlight during the Obama administration, is now a private citizen and now largely out of the limelight.  We do not need to discuss why this is unacceptable.  Ms. Barr's tweet was quickly deleted after discovery and apologized, but it was too late.  The damage was done, including the aforementioned cancellation of the successful revival of the Rosanne show.

The incident raises several important lessons that can be learned.  I have two specific lessons that I would like to discuss.  

First, it is important to have control over what is put out for public consumption.  Ultimately, while there are many things about your digital life that you cannot control (thank you Cambridge Analytica), what you put in email, what you put on Facebook, what you put on Twitter, what photos you take and share, those are all choices fully in your control.  The privacy settings that you can adjust on your social media accounts are all in your hands.  Who you choose to friend or follow on social media, or more importantly to allow to follow you, is in your control.  Remember to take control of these things.  Be cognizant and conscientious regarding what you share and with whom.  Only friend and follow people you know and trust and interact with on social media, particularly those you could discuss in person or over the phone to confirm.  

Once information is out there, it is being used in ways you cannot imagine.  Interviewers look over the Facebook pages of interviewees and evaluate their fit for the company based on what they see in addition to the interview.  Colleges look at the pages of their applicants.  Any number of places can comb over your profiles to present background information on you.  A little Big Brother that we have all agreed to.  And accordingly, there is a benefit to being a little paranoid regarding what you have as your digital footprint.  

Particularly due to point number two.

Second, for something intangible, digital traces are surprisingly permanent.   Let's use the Rosanne Barr tweet for example.  Though she deleted the tweet, it is still very easy to find it online.  Screenshots, images, backups all still exist.  If you want to see it in all of its glory, it is out there and just a google search away.  It does not matter what social media platform you discuss, the result is still the same whether it is Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or even Snapchat where the message was supposed to exist for only six seconds.  All it takes is one person to screen capture the message before it deletes and it can exist forever.  

This is the problem with sending nude pictures, particularly among underage students.  The kids do not realize that the pictures can be shared, can exist forever, can come back to haunt them for years regardless of how they were shared in the first place.  That does not even get into the potential child pornography issues that arise through the sharing of such photographs.  Again, all it takes is one person to save and share and you have a scandal.

The issue of digital content and its impact particularly resonates with me because of my job.  I sort through digital collections looking for the important material for trial.  You would be surprised what people write and keep in their work email.  Even attorneys who should know better than most (as seen from our attorney malpractice projects).  Emails are rife with discussions and content that should never be in work email, as there is never an expectation of privacy in work email.  It can and will be collected and/or audited.

Further, this job has shown me how truly indestructible digital content is.  This blog will outlive me.  It will exist on some server in some form in perpetuity likely.  Heck, all tweets prior to 2017 exist in the Library of Congress, though current tweets are now just a selection.  

The files on your computer are likewise very, very difficult to destroy.  Even if you "delete" it, even if you run a purge program, even if you wipe the hard drive, it still likely exists in some form.  To clean a hard drive, you really need to soak it in bleach, run it over with a powerful magnet, burn it, beat it repeatedly with a sledgehammer, and submerge it in a lake for a few weeks.  Even then, forensics might still be able to recover parts of it.

So be careful what you put on your computer.  Be careful what you put in email.  Be especially careful what you share on social media.

It's an important part of life now.  Live it deliberately.