Employee Internet Policies for

Government

Government Educator

February 17, 2011

Robert D. Brownstone, Esq.

© 2011

THESE MATERIALS ARE MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICES.

THEY ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE.

THOSE WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Audio Conference

EIM

GR

OU

P© 2

I. INTRO – THE MODERN LANDSCAPE

Strange Things (Prospective) Employees Memorialize

II. SOCIAL-MEDIA/SOCIAL-NETWORKING/WEB-2.0

Individual; and Government/Employer-Sponsored

III. “MONITORING” ELECTRONIC ACTIVITIES

Some Justifications & Some Countervailing Concerns

IV. INVESTIGATING & TRACKING VIRTUAL CONDUCT

?“Off-Duty”? (Web) Activities

V. IMPLEMENTING LEGALLY-COMPLIANT AND DEFENSIBLE POLICIES (time permitting)

Compliance Basics

Outline/Agenda

EIM

GR

OU

P© 3

Modern additional concerns:

Ever-expanding universe of forums

MANY more ways to expose information

Everyone can be a publisher

Personnel matters play out in public

E.g., Joseph Plambeck, Washington Post Suspends Columnist for Twitter Hoax, NYT (8/31/10)

I. INTRO – OurDigital World

EIM

GR

OU

P© 4

Technology-Acceptable-Use Policy (TAUP) =

No-Expectation- of-Privacy Policy (NoEPP)

Many SAMPLES linked off Appendix B

TWO KEYS TO DEFENSIBLE POLICIES:

POLICY CONTENTS

CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT

I. INTRO – OurDigital World

EIM

GR

OU

P© 5

I. Liability Evidence –“Smoking Gun” Messages

Strange Things People Memorialize

• “Multiple Audiences” Test

• “Green Eggs ‘N’ Ham”

• “Nine Lives of Email”

• Damaging E-mails – “Jokes,” Affairs, etc.

• Texting

Quon Officer – Slides 34-38 & 45 below

Ex-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s 1,000’s of texts on city-issued pager

8/28/09 NELI White Paper, App. H, at H-1 (.pdf p.168)

EIM

GR

OU

P© 6

6

Many articles and press reports available on request from presenter

In e-mail attachments but also . . .

Public agency risks incl. publicly posted:

Agenda or Minutes

Ordinance or Legislative Bill

Bidding Documents

I. Smoking Guns (c’t’d) –Damaging Metadata

EIM

GR

OU

P© 7

I. Embedded DataSmoking Guns (c’t’d)

MANY famous public entities bitten by cobra of embedded data

UN (Lebanese PM assassination),

British PM’s Office (“Downing Street Memo”)

Social Security Administration

California AG’s Office, etc., etc.. . .

Redaction SNAFU’s by agencies, courts, prosecutors, etc. . . . .

EIM

GR

OU

P© 8

II. Social-Media/Web 2.0/UGC

Now . . . bigger universe of web activities [some via F&W clients ]

EIM

GR

OU

P©

II. Web 2.0 – “Saying, Socializing & Sharing”

9

Per Palo Alto Networks (PAN), Application Usage and Risk Report (6th Ed. Oct. 2010) <http://www.paloaltonetworks.com/researchcenter/reports/> . . .

Live customer traffic @ > 700 orgs. (not survey):

• “Saying” – IM and personal webmail

90% of the time

• “Socializing” apps – social-networking

96% of the time

• “Sharing” – P2P and browser-based

> 80% of organizations

21% of overall bandwidth

EIM

GR

OU

P©

II. Web 2.0 –Socializing (c’t’d)

10

76%

79%

85%

93%

96%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Facebook apps

Myspace

LinkedIn

Twitter

Facebook

Top 5 Socializing Applications Found

10

EIM

GR

OU

P© 11

II. Social-Media/Web 2.0 (c’t’d)

Facebook surpassed Google in user minutes in August 2010

PROS:

• Per PAN Report (cited in Slide 9 above):

Responsiveness

Rich research

• Transparency

• Networking

EIM

GR

OU

P© 12

II. Social-Media/Web 2.0 (c’t’d)

PROS (c’t’d)

Employers’ tech toolbox growing:

• Teneros’ Social Sentry enables employers to look at employee’s public posts

<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/keeping-a-closer-eye-on-workers-social-networking/>

• PAN’s firewalls can switch Facebook to read-only mode

<http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/06/read-only-facebook-coming-to-y.php>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 13

II. Social-Media/Web 2.0 (c’t’d)

CONS

Web-capture software

Wayback Machine (Internet Archive)

And, especially . . . public tweets

Matt Raymond, How Tweet It Is!: Library [of Congress] Acquires Entire Twitter Archive, Library of Congress Blog (4/14/10)

Jeffrey Rosen, The Web Means the End of Forgetting, NYT (7/19/10)

Ever-changing privacy settings

EIM

GR

OU

P©

II. Privacy?! (c’t’d)

TAG . . . . You’re it . . . .

See ARMA, EU Investigates Facebook, Google Tagging, Info. Mgmt. (July-Aug 2010)14

EIM

GR

OU

P© 15

II. Social-Media/Web 2.0 (c’t’d)

Privacy Settings (c’t’d)

7 Things to Stop Doing Now on Facebook, Consumer Reports (5/12/10) <http://finance.yahoo.com/family-

home/article/109538/7-things-to-stop-doing-now-on-facebook>

ReclaimPrivacy Launches Facebook Privacy Settings Tool – Privacy – Info. Week, Future Lawyer (5/18/10) <http://futurelawyer.typepad.com/futurelawyer/2010/05/reclaimprivacy-launches-facebook-privacy-settings-tool----privacy----informationweek.html>, linking to:

<http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=U2HRT2FBVRZKLQE1GHOSKHWATMY32JVN?articleID=224900113>; and

the tool itself at <www.reclaimprivacy.org/>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 16

II. Social-Media/Web 2.0 (c’t’d)

CONS:

• INCOMING!

Threats cited by PAN; Md. Legislature situation, etc.

• OUTBOUND!

Ex: Recent Facebook/Farmville breach

Jared Newman, Facebook's Privacy Breach: What You Need to Know, PC World (10/18/10) <www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,208135/printable.html>

• See generally this list and that list

• Search-ability keeps increasing . . .

EIM

GR

OU

P© 17

Following Internet Trail

II. Search-abilityEver-Increasing

EIM

GR

OU

P© 18

II. Search-ability Example

EIM

GR

OU

P© 19

II. Web 2.0 Risks (c’t’d) –Intentional Conduct

One key issue = (ostensible) authority to speak on behalf of gov’t re: work-related matter

Also: Direct misuse of confidential information to harm (ex-)employer

EIM

GR

OU

P© 20

Intentional “whistleblower” leaks, i.e. “Wikileaks”

250,000 diplomatic cables from 1966 on . . . <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034276,00.html >

92,000 reports as to Afghanistan war <wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan War Diary, 2004-2010>

N.Y. Times, Piecing Together the Reports, and Deciding What to Publish (7/25/10) <nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26editors-note.html?pagewanted=print>

Also <washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072602084 pf.html>

II. Web 2.0 Risks (c’t’d) –Intentional Conduct (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P© 21

Tresa Baldas, Lawyers warn employers against giving glowing reviews on LinkedIn, Nat’l L. J. (7/6/09) <www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202432039774>

II. IntentionalConduct (c’t’d) –

EIM

GR

OU

P© 22

eDiscovery Case-law emerging. Exs: Romano v. Steelcase, 907 N.Y.S. 2d 650, at *5 (N.Y. Sup. 9/21/10)

<courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2010/2010 20388.htm>

McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., No. 113-2010 CD (Pa. C.P. Jefferson Cty. 9/9/10) <ediscoverylaw.com/uploads/file/McMillen%20v%20Hummingbird%20Speedway.pdf>

Barnes v. CUS Nashville, LLC, [d/b/a Coyote Ugly Saloon], 2010 WL 2265668 (M.D. Tenn. 6/3/10) <https://ecf.tnmd.uscourts.gov/doc1/16911303989>

Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., No. CV 09-09509 MMM (JEMx) (C.D. Cal. 5/26/10) <ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/doc1/031110245153>

U.S. v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099, 1107 (11th Cir. 5/10/10) <ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200910084.pdf>

Nguyen v. Starbucks Coffee Corp., 2009 WL 4730899 (N.D. Cal. 12/7/09) <https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/03516287723>

Mackelprang v. Fidelity National Title Agency of Nevada, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2379 (D. Nev. 1/9/07) <https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/doc1/11511167020>

II. Social-MediaIn Discovery

EIM

GR

OU

P© 23

II. Government-Sponsored Sites – Reasons/Drivers

NASCIO, A National Survey of Social Media Use in State Gov’t (9/28/10)<nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-SocialMedia.pdf>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 24

II. Government-Sponsored Sites – Major Concerns

“employee access account management acceptable use employee conduct content security legal issues, and citizen conduct”

NASCIO, A National Survey of Social Media Use in State Gov’t (9/28/10)<nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-SocialMedia.pdf>

CTG, Designing social media policy for gov’t: Eight essential elements (5/12/10) <ctg.albany.edu/publications/guides/social media policy/social media policy.pdf>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 25

II. Gov’t-Sponsored Social-Media Sites

Terms of Service (TOS) Amendment Issues:

FEDERAL

Terms of Service Agreements: GSA Paves the Way for Government Use of New Media (Oct. 2010)(35 providers), linking to Model Agreement

STATE & LOCAL (@ 1/5/11):

Facebook, Amended Pages Terms for State & Local Governments in the United States

NASCIO and Attorneys General Negotiate Model Facebook Agreement for State Government Use

EIM

GR

OU

P© 26

II. Gov’t-Sponsored Social-Media Sites

TO LEARN MORE: <www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/guides/social media policy>

<https://forum.webcontent.gov/?page=TOS agreements>

<https://forum.webcontent.gov/?page=TOS TYagencyPOCs>

<http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?id=27120>

<http://gcn.com/articles/2011/01/06/facebook-removes-barriers-to-state-and-local-agency-participation.aspx>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 27

II. Gov’t Social Media (c’t’d)

See how de rigeur tweets have become for legislators, committees, etc.

Congressional Research Service, Social Networking and Constituent Communications: Member Use of Twitter During a Two-Month Period in the 111th Congress (2/3/10) <http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41066 20100203.pdf>

Guidelines for Secure Use of Social Media by Federal Dep’ts and Agencies, v1.0, Fed. CIO Council (9/17/09)<www.cio.gov/Documents/Guidelines for Secure Use Social Media v01-0.pdf>

Government Domain: Tracking Congress 2.0, LLRX (8/31/09) <www.llrx.com/columns/govdomain42.htm>

Cf. Sensei Enterprises, PENTAGON OKS SOCIAL-MEDIA ACCESS, Bytes in Brief (4/4/10)

<senseient.com/publications/bytes/html/april 2010.html> (linking to <www.defense.gov/NEWS/DTM%2009-026.pdf>)

EIM

GR

OU

P© 28

II. Gov’t Web 2.0 (c’t’d) –“Off-Duty” Posts

Current Employees’ Personal Postings

Teachers, Police, etc. 8/28/09 White Paper, at p. 77

(.pdf p. 83), footnote 332

Marine’s “Tea Party” Facebook Page Marine's Anti-Obama Facebook

Comments Fuel Free Speech Debate, Huffington Post (4/15/10) <www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/marine-gary-stein-antioba n 538875.html>

Jeanette Steele, Pendleton Marine back on Facebook, S.D. Union–Tribune (4/14/10) <signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/14/bn14steinfolo/>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 29

II. Gov’t Web 2.0 (c’t’d) –Lobbyists’ Texting

What about legislators on floor getting pinged on smartphones/PDA’s by lobbyists?

Heather Knight, S.F. mayor seeks texting limit at city meetings, S.F. Chron. (3/10/10) <www.sfgate.com/cgi-

bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/10/MNRI1CDC7F.DTL&type=printable>

Nancy Scola, California Reformers Struggle Against Lobbyist-to-Lawmaker Texting, Personal Democracy Forum (3/3/10) (quoting S.J. Merc. News article)

(“[s]eparately, the San Jose City Council . . . unanimously approved a policy . . . . requir[ing] council members to disclose communications received on their personal e-mail or cell phones during meetings — either from lobbyists or from others with a financial interest in the matter under discussion”) <techpresident.com/blog-entry/california-reformers-struggle-against-lobbyist-lawmaker-texting>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 30

© Native Intelligence 2001

Maintain and track workers’ productivity

Network security – viruses, worms & malware, OH MY! – phishing/whaling, P2P…

Direct claims based on breaches and/or leaks

Third parties’ claims (e.g., harassment) based on employee’s conduct/postings

III. General “Monitoring” –Risks as Justifications

EIM

GR

OU

P© 31

Co-workers’ (or third parties’) claims. Ex:

“Guns Don’t Kill People. Dangerous Minorites [sic] Do.”

“[A]dults can't speak proper English or spell at a 3rd grade level, but they can sing among 'theyselves' to lyrics of a rap song.”

Complaint in Guardian Civic League v. Philadelphia Police Department(E.D. Pa. 7/15/09) linked from <http://Philly-Sgt-7-15-09.notlong.com>

III. Risk-Management andOther Reasons (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P© 32

III. Monitoring –Justifications

Protecting Individuals’ Personally Identifiable Information (PII):

States’ notice-of-breach and other anti-identity-theft statutes <www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/TelecommunicationsInformationTechnolog

y/SecurityBreachNotificationLaws/tabid/13489/Default.aspx>

<www.consumersunion.org/campaigns//financialprivacynow/002215indiv.html>

> 40 apply to private sector

> 13 of those apply to public sector too (Alaska, Cal., DC. Ill., Ind., Md., Mich., NC, NY, NJ, Nevada, OK, Wash.)

EIM

GR

OU

P© 33

On whole, same rules applicable to employees’ “reasonableness” arguments in Constitutional, statutory & common law

REMEMBER TWO KEYS:

• POLICY CONTENTS

• CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT

See Quon v. Arch Wireless Op. Co., 554 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 1/27/09) (“Quon II)”<www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/02/06/0755282o.pdf>,

reversed, 130 S. Ct. 2619 (6/17/10) <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1332.pdf>

III. Monitoring’s Legality –Recent Highlights

EIM

GR

OU

P© 34

III. Monitoring (c’t’d) – USSC RECENT KEY DECISION

Quon II (9th Cir.)

Employer let “operational reality” trump old, unrevised policy language

SCA violation for pager service provider to disclose City employee’s text messages to City/employer

U.S. Sup. Ct. granted cert. – and ultimately reversed – only on 4th Amendment “expectation of privacy” violation

Practical tips . . .

EIM

GR

OU

P© 35

III. Monitoring (c’t’d) –USSC in Quon (c’t’d)

Quon – “Super Six” Takeaways

• 6. CLEAR policy covering all info. created, stored, received or transmitted on or by any system or device provided by the employer.

• 5. Decide whether to extend to all devices supported by or costs reimbursed by employer and make the scope clear to all

EIM

GR

OU

P© 36

III. Quon “Super Six”Takeaways (c’t’d)

4. Specify all employer rights, including to:

• monitor;

• search;

• access;

• inspect; and

• read

EIM

GR

OU

P© 37

III. Quon SuperSix (c’t’d)

3. Be realistic re: “personal use” – strongly consider “limited” or “incidental” exception with carve-outs for illegal, dilatory or unethical activity:

2. Train new employees and managers – and periodically retrain/remind experienced ones – re: key TAUP provisions, especially NoEPP

1. Periodically – every 2-3 years? – review, (and maybe revise) TAUP so it’s:

• consistent with actual practices; and

• up-to-date as to current technology, e.g., smartphones and social networking sites

EIM

GR

OU

P© 38

III. TAUP/NoEPP (c’t’d) –Privacy Expectations (c’t’d)

Aside from some 1st and 4th

Amendment claims, typically courts support employer

BUT 2 potential exceptions even in private sector case law:

• examining locally-stored files impinging on an employee’s attorney-client (a/c) privilege; OR

• illicitly obtaining password and accessing content in personal account or site

EIM

GR

OU

P© 39

III. Privacy Expectations –A/C Privilege – Split (c’t’d)

MOST RECENT DECISION: Holmes v. Petrovich, C059133 (Cal. App. 3 Dist.

1/13/11) <courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C059133.PDF>:

Communications sent via work email system NOT confidential because employee:

knew of company TAUP as to no personal use

warned that company would monitor

warned of NOEP

“[A]kin to consulting her lawyer in her employer’s conference room, in a loud voice, with the door open, so that any reasonable person would expect that their discussion of her complaints about her employer would be overheard by him.”

EIM

GR

OU

P©III. A/C Privilege vs.

TAUP/NOEP (c’t’d)

PRACTICAL TIPS

• Policy language

• Investigation protocol

TO LEARN MORE

• Lists of links to articles/decisions available

• Look for Bloomberg Law Reports article

40

EIM

GR

OU

P© 41

III. Overreaching (c’t’d) –ECPA Intrusions

Avoid unauthorized intrusions into employees’ personal Web 2.0 pages, passwords and/or e-mail

Violates ECPA Title I (Wiretap) or Title II (SCA) Pietrylo v. Hillstone Rest. Group d/b/a Houston's, 2009 WL

3128420 (D. N.J. 9/25/09) (MySpace group page; SCA) <www.employerlawreport.com/uploads/file/Opinion%209-25-09.pdf>

Brahmana v. Lembo, 2009 WL 1424438 (N.D. Cal. 5/20/09) (e-mail; Wiretap) <http://op.bna.com/pl.nsf/id/dapn-7sfhhx/$File/brahmana.pdf>

Van Alstyne v. Electronic Scriptorium, Ltd., 560 F.3d 199 (9th Cir. 3/18/09) (e-mail; SCA) <http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/071892.P.pdf>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 42

Guard Publ’ng Co. d/b/a Register-Guard v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 7/7/09)

Selective enforcement of e-mail policy’s no-solicitation rule = unlawfully discriminatory

Cf. AFSCME Local 575 v. PERB; L.A. Cty. Sup. Ct., No. B211910 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 6/10/09) (denying petition re: PERB Dec. No. 1979-C, 32 PERC ¶ 151)

NEW! NLRB, Complaint alleges Connecticut company illegally fired employee over Facebook comments(11/2/10) <mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45803c4e5e>

Takeaways?

Avoid fine distinctions?

Track rejections of personal use?

III. Another Concern –Union Activity

EIM

GR

OU

P© 43

Following Trail (c’t’d)

“Drunken Pirate” in Snyder v. Millersville Univ., No. 07-1660, 2008 WL 5093140 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2008) <voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/Decision%202008.12.03.pdf>

Weak “expectation of privacy” argument

Traditional labor law concepts

For articles comprising barometer re: employers, contact the presenter

IV. Investigations & Checks (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P© 44

Workplace & Personal Searches

Reasonable expectations standard

More complicated for public employers Quon II [9th Cir.] majority & dissent disagreed

Dissent accused Majority of inaptly applying “less intrusive means” standard

Disagreement on whether search was “special needs” or “investigatory”

Interpretations varied of the factual record as to the breadth of uses to which officers supposed to put pagers

IV. Searching and Tracking Employees

EIM

GR

OU

P© 45

IV. Searching and TrackingPhysical & Virtual Conduct

Video Surveillance• Invasion-of-Privacy Concerns . . .

<http://dilbert-surveillance.notlong.com>:

• 2009 Cal. intrusion decision an anomaly? Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 272,

211 P.3d 1063, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274 (Cal. 8/3/09)<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/S147552.PDF>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 46

IV. Video Surveillance (c’t’d) –Recent Developments

10/20/09 Metrolink “trainmen” file suits

10/21/09 Airline laptop incident

<http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/greenberg/qqxsgTexting.jpg>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 47

IV. Transportation (c’t’d) –Texting Bans

Exec. Order, FEDERAL LEADERSHIP ON REDUCING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING (Oct. 1, 2009) <whitehouse.gov/the press office/Executive-Order-Federal-Leadership-on-Reducing-Text-Messaging-while-Driving/>

• Richtel, Texting While Driving Banned for Fed. Staff, NYT (10/2/09)<nytimes.com/2009/10/02/technology/02distracted.html?pagewanted=print>

D.O.T., U.S. Transp. Sec’y Ray LaHood Proposes Rule to Ban Texting for Truck & Bus Drivers • DOT 55-10 (3/31/10)

<dot.gov/affairs/2010/dot5510.htm>

Larry Copeland, Software Aims To Block Texting WhileDriving, NewsFactor (7/22/10) <http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story id=74411>

EIM

GR

OU

P© 48

Web Activity – Examples:

Fired: Various “out sick” or on leave <http://www.buzzfeed.com/sneeze/top-5-sick-day-fails-u2j>

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1080010/Call-centre-worker-caught-boss-posting-sickie-plan-Facebook.html?printingPage=true>

Resigned: Radio reporter, over her personal blog posts re: Alaskan towns-folks’ drinking, inbreeding, incest and sexual mores

<http://www.adn.com/2009/07/27/878744/blogger-ignites-firestorm-in-dillingham.html>

IV. Looking Into “Off-Duty” Activities

EIM

GR

OU

P© 49

More Web Activity Exs.:

Restricted = Marine’s Facebook page

“Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots” <http://Marine-Facebook-4-13-10.notlong.com>

TOO FAR?

Dropped = sick-leave benefits

Insurance agent saw “cheerful” Chippendale photos of allegedly depressed woman

<http://Ins-Photos-AP-11-22-09.notlong.com

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852 3-10404633-71.html>

IV. Looking Into “Off-Duty” Activities

EIM

GR

OU

P© 50

Keys if are going to discipline/terminate:

no reasonable expectation of privacy

nexus to job performance

consistent enforcement of “real” policy, as to which employees received notice

IV. “Off-Duty” Activities In Web Content (c’t’d)

EIM

GR

OU

P© 51

V. ComplianceBasics

KUMBAYA?!

Clear, well-thought-out language on which multiple constituencies have weighed in . . .

Compliance’s “3 E’s” = Establish/Educate/Enforce

© TOSHIBA

EIM

GR

OU

P© 52

See Samples links in Appendix A

NEVER blindly follow a sample

DON’T GO TOO FAR

Right to monitor vs. taking on duty to monitor

Examples: harassing language filter; IM logs

BE REASONABLE/REALISTIC

Incidental/limited personal use exception

Dep’t Of Education v. Choudhri, OATH Index No. 722/06 (N.Y.C. Office Of Admin. T & H 3/9/06)<files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nyc/doechoudri30906opn.pdf>

V. ImplementingDefensible Policies

EIM

GR

OU

P© 53

Public-Records-ACT (PRA)/ FOIL/Sunshine issues

FOR PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY, CONTACT PRESENTER

PRA, 1st Amendment, etc. <www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2009/08/government-

officials-use-personal-email-and-texting-accounts-to-avoid-public-access-laws-why-not-use-technology-to-enhance-accountability-instead-of-to-subvert-it/>

<www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/01/san-jose-want-to-restrict-use-of-private-e-mails-to-discuss-official-business/>

V. ImplementingPolicies (c’t’d)

Let’s be careful out there . . .

EIM

GR

OU

P© 54

Conclusion/Questions

Q+A

Robert D. Brownstone <www.fenwick.com/attorneys/4.2.1.asp?aid=544>

650.335.7912 or <rbrownstone@fenwick.com>

Please visit F&W EIM <www.fenwick.com/services/2.23.0.asp?s=1055>

<www.fenwick.com/services/2.23.4.asp?s=1055>

THESE MATERIALS ARE MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICES.

THEY ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE.

THOSE WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Robert D. Brownstone – Materials & Resources – SAMPLE TECHNOLOGY-ACCEPTABLE-USE POLICIES (“TAUP’s”) – @ 2/15/11

Generic TAUP’s – Samples appended to 8/28/09 NELI White Paper:

o Pages D-1 through D-17 (.pdf pp. 142-58) (blogging policy should be expanded to cover all Web 2.0 sites)

<http://fenwick.com/docstore/publications/EIM/eWorkplace_Policies_Materials_Public_Sector_EEO_8-28-09.pdf#page=142>

Web-2.0/Social-Media Policies – Non-Fenwick-Drafted Generic Samples:

o 160+ Policies in database at <http://socialmediagovernance.com/policies.php>

o <http://op.bna.com/pl.nsf/id/dapn-7vak72/$File/AP.pdf> (AP’s Social-Media “Q&A”)

o <http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html (“IBM Social Computing Guidelines ”)

o <http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/virtualworlds.IBMVirtualWorldGuidelines.html> (“IBM Virtual World Guidelines”)

o <http://socialmediagovernance.com/studies/>

o <www.records.ncdcr.gov/guides/best_practices_socialmedia_usage_20091217.pdf>

o <www.utahta.wikispaces.net/file/view/State+of+Utah+Social+Media+Guidelines+9.29.pdf>

o <http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202426674355>, linking to sample:

< http://www.jaffepr.com/about-us/industry-insight/white-papers/social-media-

policy-procedures-and-social-network-policy-proc>

o <http://www.lehrmiddlebrooks.com/SocialMedia.html>

o <www.epolicyinstitute.com/bin/loadpage.cgi?1254863981+forms/index.asp> ($99)

o <www.messagelabs.com/white_papers/epolicy_form> (free registration)

Related Helpful Resources

o <http://www.records.ncdcr.gov/>

o <www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202428377614>

o <www.delawareemploymentlawblog.com/technology/the_internet_as_a_hiring_tool/>

o <http://mashable.com/2009/04/28/facebook-privacy-settings>

APPENDIX B – Robert D. Brownstone – Gov’t Educator Materials Public Records – Partial Bibliography (@ 2/15/11)

1

A. Miscellaneous Primary and Secondary Authorities

• Federal agency retention requirements (SOME): National Archives, General Records Schedules (Apr. 19, 2010) <http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/grs/>

• State governments generically: NASCIO publications linked off of <http://www.nascio.org/publications/pubsSubject2.cfm?category=30>, including:

• Cal. Exemplar set of retention periods for a state’s agencies and local government entities: Cal. Sec. of State, Local Gov’t Records Mgmt. Guidelines (Feb. 2006) <sos.ca.gov/archives/local-gov-program/pdf/records-management-8.pdf> (I have a Word version I was able to obtain from the Cal. Secretary of State in Sep. 2007; I think, but am not sure, it has the same content as the .pdf

• D.C. Government Administrative, E-mail Retention Policy, Mayor’s Order 2007-157 <http://os.dc.gov/os/frames.asp?doc=/os/lib/os/info/mayors_orders/2007/jul/2007-157_citywide_email_rentention_policy.pdf> [SUBSEQUENTLY REPEALED]

• Wash. Exemplar set of retention periods for a state’s agencies: Sec. of State, State Government General Records Retention Schedule Version 5.0 (Oct. 2010), available in Word and in.pdf formats at <sos.wa.gov/archives/RecordsManagement/RecordsRetentionSchedulesforStateGovernmentAgencies.aspx>

B. Decisions (some; there are MANY more on privacy, back-ups, etc.)

• NDLON v. U.S. I.C.E., 2011 WL 381625 (S.D.N.Y. 2/7/11 (“consistent with the state court decisions . . . certain metadata is an integral or intrinsic part of an electronic record; [a]s a result, such metadata is ‘readily reproducible’ in the FOIA context”) <http://ralphlosey.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ndlon-v-ice-10-civ-3488-metadata-foia_revised.pdf>

• Associated Press v. Canterbury, No. 34768 (W. Va. Sup. Ct. App. Nov. 2009): Majority opinion (11/12/09) (“[u]nder the clear language of the ‘public record’ definition, a personal e-mail communication by a public official or public employee, which does not relate to the conduct of the public's business, is not a public record subject to disclosure under FOIA”) <www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/fall09/34768.pdf>; and Concurring/Dissenting Opinion (11/18/09) <www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/fall09/34768c.pdf>

• Lake v. City of Phoenix (“Lake II”), 2009 Ariz. LEXIS 257 (Oct. 20, 2009) (“if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws”) <supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2009/CV090036PR.pdf>

• Fla. A.G., McCollum Announces New Policy on Public Records, Press Release (Sep. 15, 2009) <http://www.myflsunshine.com/newsrel.nsf/sunreleases/2C3A7E796E3933338525763200577CB0>

• Evertson v. City of Kimball, 278 Neb. 1, 767 N.W.2d 751 (July 2, 2009) (“private investigator’s written data and reports constitute[d] public records . . . when the public body contractually delegated its investigative authority to the private investigators[; but] . . . requested materials [were] . . . exempt from disclosure under” statutory exception) <www.localopengovernment.com/uploads/file/EvertsonCity-Kimballs08-524.pdf>

• O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 240 P.3d 1149 (Oct. 7, 2010) (““an electronic version of a record, including its embedded metadata, is a public record subject to disclosure. There is no doubt here that the relevant e-mail itself is a public record, so its embedded metadata is also a public record and must be disclosed”) <http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/tags/oneill-v-city-of-shoreline/> (linking to majority and dissent)

APPENDIX B – Robert D. Brownstone – Gov’t Educator Materials Public Records – Partial Bibliography (@ 2/15/11)

2

B. Decisions (some) (c’t’d)

• Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 968 A.2d 1151 (Apr. 27, 2009) (requiring requestor to pay costs of redacting Social Security Numbers – from land title records) <http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-43-08.doc.html>

• State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Com’rs, 120 Ohio St.3d 372, 899 N.E.2d 961 (Dec. 9, 2008) (“grant[ing] writ to compel the board to make reasonable efforts to recover, at its expense, the requested deleted e-mails and to make them promptly available for inspection”) <http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-6253.pdf>

• Georgia Dept. of Agriculture v. Griffin Indus., 284 Ga. App. 259, 644 S.E. 2d 286 (Mar. 19, 2007) (remanding for properly noticed hearing as to whether state agency had to restore email from back-up) <http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CGA%5C2007%5C20070319_0000363.GA.htm/qx>

• Cowles Pub. Co. v. Kootenai County Bd. of County Com’rs, 144 Idaho 259, 159 P.3d 896 (2007) (e-mails between public employees were public records and, due to signed County e-mail policy, were not protected by legitimate privacy expectation) <http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/cowles14.pdf>

• Wiredata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 298 Wis. 2d 743, 729 N.W.2d 757 (Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2007) (finding violation of open records law via disclosure of .pdf image files instead of provision of database access) <http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=27629>

C. Articles

• ARMA, E-Mail Problems Still Plague [Fed.] Gov. Agencies, Info. Mgmt. J. (Sep./Oct. 2010) <http://content.arma.org/IMM/images/IMM_0910_issue.pdf#page=12>

• ARMA, Suit Prompts Wisconsin to Revisit E-Mail Policies, Info. Mgmt. J. (Nov.-Dec. 2009) <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3937/is_200911/ai_n42858544/>

• ARMA, Judge: Palin's Private E-Mail Use Legal, Info. Mgmt. J. (Nov.-Dec. 2009) <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3937/is_200911/ai_n42858560/>

• Breen, Tom, Don Blankenship: Public Officials' Emails Are Private, State Supreme Court Rules, AP (Nov. 13, 2009) <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/don-blankenship-public-of_n_357401.html>

• ARMA, Oklahoma Opts for Open Records, Info. Mgmt. J. (Sep./Oct. 2009) <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3937/is_200909/ai_n39233479/>

• Slack, Donovan and Levenson, Michael, Menino’s office acknowledges city employees routinely deleted e-mails, Boston Globe (Sep. 13, 2009) <http://Slack-Pub-Records-9-13-09.notlong.com>

• Fruehling-Watson, Rosa, Documents Prepared by Private Investigator for City Exempt from Disclosure, Local Open Government Blog (Aug. 31, 2009) <www.localopengovernment.com/tags/nebraska/>

• Scheer, Peter, Commentary: Government officials use personal email and texting accounts to avoid public access laws. Why not use technology to enhance accountability instead of to subvert it? Cal. First Amendment Coalition (Aug. 20, 2009) <http://Scheer-Pub-Records-8-20-09.notlong.com>

• Lieb, David A., State to pay $500,000 to settle e-mail lawsuit filed against former Gov. Blunt, AP (May 22, 2009) <http://Lieb-Blunt-AP-5-22-09.notlong.com>

• West, Natalie and Jenkins, Michael, When Does Your E-Mail Become a Matter of Public Record?, Inst. for Local Gov't (Sep. 1, 2003) (quoting CPRA Senate Floor Analysis, Aug. 20, 2002)) <http://West-Pub-Records-9-1-03.notlong.com>