<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Liza Barry-Kessler &#187; twitter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.privacycounsel.net/category/twitter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.privacycounsel.net</link>
	<description>Social Media Law &#38; Privacy/Data Security Compliance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:42:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Cisco&#8217;s 2009 Security Report: Social Media Users, Be Careful!</title>
		<link>http://www.privacycounsel.net/2009/12/11/ciscos-2009-security-report-social-media-users-be-careful/</link>
		<comments>http://www.privacycounsel.net/2009/12/11/ciscos-2009-security-report-social-media-users-be-careful/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Liza</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cisco]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security report]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.privacycounsel.net/?p=93</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Check out the Cisco&#8217;s 2009 Annual Security Report! One of the most interesting observations &#8212; which should not be surprising to information security professionals &#8212; is that online criminals are successfully exploiting social media and social networks, using people&#8217;s willingness to respond to messages that appear to be from others whom they know and trust. Anyone who has clicked on a Twitter direct message URL that turned out to be tweetspam, that&#8217;s at least part of what they mean. When someone who doesn&#8217;t usually send you a direct message unexpectedly sends you a vague but inviting message, like, &#8220;Check out this funny video!&#8221; DON&#8217;T CLICK ON IT. Do a search for tweetspam, instead, and see how many thousands of the exact same message have been sent all over the twitterverse. And once you know it to be tweetspam, tweet a warning to your followers. (Without the spam URL &#8212; instead tell them &#8220;Don&#8217;t click on any DMs that say &#8216;check out this funny video!&#8217; They&#8217;re spam and malware!&#8221; Of course there&#8217;s a lot more to the Cisco Security Report. Take a look!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.privacycounsel.net/2009/12/11/ciscos-2009-security-report-social-media-users-be-careful/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FTC Guidelines for Ads Now Apply to Social Media</title>
		<link>http://www.privacycounsel.net/2009/10/05/ftc-guidelines-for-ads-now-apply-to-social-media/</link>
		<comments>http://www.privacycounsel.net/2009/10/05/ftc-guidelines-for-ads-now-apply-to-social-media/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Liza</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[federal action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blog with integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blogger disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ftc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ftc advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ftc endorsements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ftc guides]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ftc testimonials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mommybloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[payola]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sponsored blogger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sponsored tweets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.privacycounsel.net/?p=65</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today the Federal Trade Commission published final revisions for its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising [81 page pdf], which now explicitly includes bloggers and other forms of &#8220;new media.&#8221; Based on comments submitted to the FTC when it published the Guides revisions as a proposal: [T]he Commission is setting forth a construct for analyzing whether or not consumer-generated content falls within the definition of an endorsement in Section 255.0(b) of the Guides. The Commission will, of course, consider each use of these new media on a case-by-case basis for purposes of law enforcement, as it does with all advertising. That construct focuses on this fundamental question: [I]n disseminating positive statements about a product or service, is the speaker: (1) acting solely independently, in which case there is no endorsement, or (2) acting on behalf of the advertiser or its agent, such that the speaker’s statement is an “endorsement” that is part of an overall marketing campaign? The specific set of facts that the FTC will examine when considering enforcement actions include: whether the speaker is compensated by the advertiser or its agent; whether the product or service in question was provided for free by the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.privacycounsel.net/2009/10/05/ftc-guidelines-for-ads-now-apply-to-social-media/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Privacy, Anonymity, and the Importance of Having a Social Media Policy</title>
		<link>http://www.privacycounsel.net/2009/08/27/privacy-anonymity-and-the-importance-of-having-a-social-media-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.privacycounsel.net/2009/08/27/privacy-anonymity-and-the-importance-of-having-a-social-media-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Liza</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy problem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.privacycounsel.net/?p=49</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Are your employees blogging? Tweeting? Using FaceBook, LinkedIn, or BlogHer? Do you have any idea? If you don&#8217;t know, and your company or organization is large enough that you can&#8217;t call out &#8220;Hey? Are you using any of these things?&#8221; and get a verbal answer from everyone, then the answer is probably yes. And they might not be using it in a way that reflects well on their workplace. For example, the now-Internet-famous Lindsay and her former boss both used Facebook in a way that few employers would find acceptable. In that example, the boss clearly knew who was posting disparaging remarks about him and about the workplace. What if she&#8217;d been complaining anonymously? On Twitter, there is no identity verification, or even any particular motive for using a personally identifiable username. There, so many people complain that they hate their jobs that someone created a feed to capture all of the &#8220;I hate my job&#8221; tweets in real time. I tried to find anonymous complaints, but nearly all of them appeared to be either fully identifiable &#8212; first and last name &#8212; or partially identifiable &#8212; first name + profile photo or location. Some even named the employer! Still, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.privacycounsel.net/2009/08/27/privacy-anonymity-and-the-importance-of-having-a-social-media-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

