As part of a three-part discussion on the reputation risks facing high net worth families, we filmed this conversation about internet law with Ms. Rafin, an Internet law expert and Associate General Counsel – Media and Compliance at American Media, LLC, and Dan Shefet, a French lawyer based in Paris, and a leading expert in Internet and privacy law in Europe and other countries.
If you have questions regarding your legal rights online, it is a good starting place for learning more about what you need to know: the law is the same for everyone regardless of your economic standing. The video is 30-minutes long and addresses the most common reputation damage and related issues harming people online.
When you do not have any legal recourse for the reputation issues you face, an online reputation management strategy will create positive new on the Internet that will appear on the first page or two of Google, and replace much or all of what is there.
The EU’s 2006 passage of the “Right to Be Forgotten” law gives European citizens the ability to force Google and other search engines to remove links to old or irrelevant information.
The passage of that law increases the contrast between legislation regarding online publishing in Europe and the United States. In the U.S. there are still very few legal boundaries constraining the publication and distribution of online content. Authors are free to post most any material anonymously. If anyone finds that material to be damaging, they have little leverage to demand a retraction and no clear target for prosecution. Discussion about new legislation has revolved around freedom of speech issues, issues that have strong advocates.
Understanding the implications of the main U.S. law governing the Internet — Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act – is helpful in knowing how to best protect the privacy, security and reputations of U.S. citizens. That law frees website owners from legal responsibility for what others post on their sites.
There is much discussion in the U.S. about updating Section 230, most recently in The New York Times’ article, What’s Behind the Fight Over Section 230. As reporter Shira Ovide observes:
“…The 26-word law allows websites to make rules about what people can or can’t post without being held legally responsible (for the most part) for the content.
If I accuse you of murder on Facebook, you might be able to sue me, but you can’t sue Facebook. If you buy a defective toy from a merchant on Amazon, you might be able to take the seller to court, but not Amazon. (There is some legal debate about this, but you get the gist.)
The law created the conditions for Facebook, Yelp and Airbnb to give people a voice without being sued out of existence. But now Republicans and Democrats are asking whether the law gives tech companies either too much power or too little responsibility for what happens under their watch.”
The New York Times has published a disturbing article that shows how some online reputation damage happens: intentionally.
In A Vast Web of Vengeance, tech reporter Kashmir Hill details how one person spent years creating false, negative posts about more than a hundred people. They have suffered extreme reputation damage due to 1200 defamatory posts that are too unpleasant to print here. In her article, Hill describes “the power of a lone person to destroy countless reputations, aided by platforms like Google that rarely intervene.”
Yes: On the internet, anyone can be impersonated, harassed or the focus of “fake news.” It persists because of the Communications Decency Act Section 230, (CDA 230), a law that protects the platforms that publish such information — publishers like Google, Facebook, Twitter and millions of blogs, forums and websites — against liability for third-party content on their websites.
We have written extensively about the need to update that law. That includes our interviews with leaders active in the movement to change it, notably:
Right2Remove, which advocates for “Right to Remove” privacy policy legislation “that allows for the removal of content from Internet platforms that is designed to cause reputational harm to consumers in the United States.”
Here is to more investigative journalism focusing on this important topic, including changing the law that enables such harmful content to remain on the internet forever, or at all.
A three-part series of live, 30-minute briefings with reputation management, Internet law, investigations, due diligence and risk mitigation experts will take place on August 5, 12 and 19, 2020. Registration is free and may be made via the links below. The program will be held on Zoom.
Focusing on reputation risk facing high-net-worth families (HNWFs), the program is hosted by Reputation Communications and moderated by its founder and CEO, Shannon Wilkinson.
“In a digital world, everyone faces reputation risk,” says Shannon Wilkinson. “But high-net-worth families and individuals face special scrutiny and a dangerous loss of privacy both online and off. Online personal and reputational attacks, threats and disparagement, unfounded allegations, disinformation campaigns, impersonation schemes, disturbing online threats, extortion, and harassment are some examples. These risks can impact all areas of their professional and personal life. Having served victims of such issues for a decade, I want to provide HNWFs with my own insight, as well as credible information from colleagues who are experienced in helping such families.”
Program details follow.
Wednesday, August 5: Alert: The Reputation Risk Setting Now.
Shannon Wilkinson will introduce the program and summarize the types of reputation risks HNWFs face, including generational ones, from family leaders to teens and college students.
David Niccolini will provide an overview of the current environment contributing to the aforementioned threats, examples of the types of risks HNWFs encounter now, and the importance of situational awareness.
Tim Murphy will introduce cybersecurity threats that are increasingly common and unique to HNWFs, including account takeover and ransomware attacks.
Click here to register for the August 5th briefing.
Wednesday, August 12: Alarm: Your Internet Legal Rights in the U.S. & Abroad.
Shannon Wilkinson will introduce the program and highlight the differences between American Internet and privacy laws and those in Europe and other countries.
Christine Rafin will summarize why consumers have so few Internet legal rights in the U.S., and address common questions relating to the removal of negative, defamatory and/or infringing material from the Internet.
Dan Shefet will explain how the “Right to Be Forgotten” law operates in Europe and Argentina; provide examples of the types of content that is removable on Google; and describe the privacy laws in Europe, which are far stronger than in the U.S. He will briefly address similar online privacy laws in other countries.
Click here to register for the August 12 briefing.
Wednesday, August 19: Adapt: Double-Due Diligence & Expert Intel.
Shannon Wilkinson will introduce the program and why the issues of due diligence and investigations are relevant in high-net-worth reputation risk cases.
Don Aviv will provide inside examples of the types of threats that due diligence has revealed, especially on the personal rather than organizational side of HNWFs.
Arun Rao will share insight into the types of reputation risk issues facing prominent public figures like elected officials, candidates for public office, entertainers, and high-profile executives. Key issues include investigating and addressing false allegations and “fake news.”
Click here to register for the August 19 briefing.
About the Speakers
Don Aviv: As president of Interfor International, Don has managed, led, and coordinated teams on thousands of due diligence and investigative cases, many with complex aspects and multinational reaches. He directly supports chief security officers and general counsel of some of the world’s leading corporations, financial institutions, and family offices.
Tim Murphy: Tim is a recognized leader in global cybersecurity and intelligence. In his previous role as Deputy Director of the FBI, and now as CEO of Consortium Networks, a cyber network and solutions firm, his experience covers all operational aspects of counterintelligence, criminal, cyber, and intelligence programs. He has experience in ensuring the technological and cybersecurity of companies, high-net-worth individuals and their family offices.
David Niccolini: David Niccolini co-founded TorchStone in 2010. The company has won numerous awards and has been featured in Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, the Washingtonian, and the PBS News Hour. Over the years, David has directed security, consulting, and investigative operations across six continents on behalf of families (to include Forbes 400) and multinational corporations (to include Fortune 50).
Christine Rafin: As Associate General Counsel – Media and Compliance at American Media, LLC, Christine advises on defamation, privacy, intellectual property and publicity issues for a wide range of brands, including podcasts, online publications and magazines from National Enquirer to US Weekly. Christine has extensive experience representing high net worth individuals in federal and state civil, commercial and regulatory matters. She is an expert in the rapidly-evolving fields of Internet law, digital marketing law, and data privacy and security law.
Arun Rao: As the President of IGI, Arun draws on his experience at the Department of Justice, the White House, and the New York County District Attorney’s Office to advise clients on crisis and risk management. Arun and his team provide concierge-level assistance to elected officials, candidates for office, entertainers, and other prominent individuals facing reputational attacks, threats, and disparagement. As Principal of The Lenzner Firm (IGI’s affiliated law firm), Arun also provides counsel on potential legal remedies.
Dan Shefet: A French lawyer based in Paris, Dan Shefet holds a Philosophy Degree and a Law Degree from the University of Copenhagen. Specializing in European Law, Competition Law as well as Human Rights in general and in the IT environment in particular, he is a noted public speaker on IT Law, Data Privacy and Human Rights on the internet. In 2014 he founded the Association for Accountability and Internet Democracy (AAID) the main objective of which is to introduce a general principle of accountability on the internet.
Shannon Wilkinson: As the founder of Reputation Communications, one of the first firms in the online reputation management space, Shannon has advised numerous high-net-worth clients, including CEOs, business leaders, luxury brands, public figures, philanthropists, Forbes 400 and Forbes 500 clients, entertainment industry icons, FinTech leaders, tech founders, venture capitalists, and others. Reputation Communications is based in New York.
In Europe, privacy is considered a human right. Online harassment is considered a human rights abuse.
In the U.S., there are few laws protecting us against having our personal data published online, or even collected and sold by data publishers. On the internet, any of us can be impersonated, harassed or the focus of “fake news.”
The personal and professional damages caused by online harassment can be so disruptive that my online reputation management practice supports bringing a version of the “Right to be Forgotten” to America—even though the CDA 230, the law that prevents that, is effectively the source of much of our business. We also support the passage of laws that will better protect the online privacy of U.S. citizens and protect them from anonymous harassment and other forms of hate speech, while through our business we find practical ways to protect them now.
My new article on Medium addresses the reasons why it is time to bring the “Right to Be Forgotten” here.
Since the United States has yet to implement a “Right to Be Forgotten” law like the one in Europe, all Americans remain at an increased risk of reputational harm, with few resources available to permanently remove damaging information from Internet search engines.
The Right2Remove movement is trying to change that. Founded by conceptual artist Paolo Cirio in 2016 and directed by blogger and activist Scott Philotoff, Right2Remove advocates for “Right to Remove” privacy policy legislation “that allows for the removal of content from Internet platforms that is designed to cause reputational harm to consumers in the United States.” Their vision is for Congress to introduce a “Right to Remove” bill that can be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission or an independent review panel.
Calling for sweeping change in Internet privacy and online reputation protection
Right2Remove calls for sweeping change in all aspects of Internet privacy and online reputation protection. Most notable is its advocacy for a data privacy law much like Europe’s “Right to be Forgotten,” which would grant individuals clear opt-in and opt-out options for data collection, access to all personal data collected, and the ability to correct inaccurate information and erase outdated or unlawful material, among other freedoms. Right2Remove also wants search engines and platforms to be held responsible for the dissemination of illicit, harmful, and misleading content, and the establishment of an independent, unbiased review panel for adjudicating consumer protection violations on the Internet.
Participate by taking these three actions
What can the Right2Remove do for you right now? It starts with 3 forms:
1. The “Tell” form. Fill this form out to share personal experiences and stories concerning the need for a Right to Remove privacy policy. By submitting this form, you become part of the growing Right2Remove community, where you’ll have the opportunity to reach out to other community members for support and discussion. This will also get the ball rolling on organizing demonstrations and protests, fundraising, and meetings with the FTC and local officials.
2. The “Remove” form. Filling out this form will generate an automated takedown letter to send to search engines asking for the removal of sensitive personal information from their search results.
3. The “Support” form. Fill out this form if you have legal advice, legislation suggestions, technical tutorials, and emotional support to share.
By now, you know that the Internet can be as dangerous for your reputation as it is useful. It is imperative that Internet practices that permit the abuse and misuse of people’s sensitive information be reformed. Everyone has a right to be in control of their online reputation and have a say in what content is posted about them online.
You can read more about Right2Remove’s work here. You can help them directly by supporting their work and signing their petition for a Right to Remove privacy policy.
Despite frequent outcries about data breaches affecting millions of Internet users, U.S. citizens continue to have the lowest level of privacy protection in the world. Not surprisingly, the U.S. law governing online content is also outdated.
A 2011 ruling in a New York City court of appeals that would still stand today illustrates why the law needs to be updated to reflect current Internet use.
The court dismissed a businessman for filing a suit against a competitor for consistently posting “false and defamatory statements of fact” online that were clearly intended to injure the claimant’s reputation.
The judge noted that the comments about the claimant were “unquestionably offensive and obnoxious,” but held that the defendants were protected under the Communications Decency Act, which shields Web site operators from liability when they publish and edit material that they did not create.
In plain English: nothing could stop the poster from continuing to publish libel that, were it in print, would probably make him the subject of a successful lawsuit.
We Support the Right to Be Forgotten
Situations like the one above influence reputations in a way that is unfair (and in our view, should not be legal). That is why establishing and maintaining a strong online reputation is an asset for individuals and businesses alike. It is also why an update of internet laws is far overdue.
We support the Right to Be Forgotten on Google. Increasing numbers of other concerned Americans are raising their voices to demand that option come to America, too. Why Americans Need And Deserve The Right To Be Forgotten, by security expert and Inc. columnist Joseph Steinberg, presents a compelling reason why it should. With Dan Shefet’s help, it will.
Dan Shefet is a Paris-based attorney who forced Google to remove links to defamatory information about him in 2014. The case made worldwide headlines and led to the Right to be Forgotten law in Europe, which allows citizens to request Google remove links to certain types of personal information about them online. He has since established the Association for Accountability and Internet Democracy (AAID) Its goal is to to make search engines legally responsible for the information they publish. Dan’s goal is to establish a chapter of AAID in the U.S. You can learn more about his views in our interview with him: Dan Shefet: Creator of the Internet’s Ombudsman.
The European Union has introduced some of the world’s strictest online privacy rules. The “Right to be Forgotten” on Google — not yet available in the U.S. — is a notable example.
Now, according to The New York Times, the French data protection authority has fined Google 50 million euros for not properly disclosing to users how data is collected across its services. That includes its search engine, Google Maps and YouTube and other platforms. (If you’ve seen personalized advertisements following you around when you are using the internet, that is where they originate. Tech companies make massive profits from collecting and selling your data to marketers.)
Organizations like Facebook and Google make strenuous efforts to keep such laws from entering the U.S. Nonetheless, Europeans who have spearheaded such efforts are laying the groundwork here to begin bringing more protective laws to U.S. consumers.
We support bringing the “Right to be Forgotten” to America…along with better privacy laws. These are articles we have published about the issues:
