A Checklist for Employee Reference Checks

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

Thorough research during an employer’s hiring phase can prevent undesirable employees from becoming part of a workforce. There is no better way to get an accurate assessment of job applicants than by speaking with people who have actually worked with them. Before picking up the phone, however, potential employers should keep a few things in mind:

Who should inquire?

Someone in HR may typically perform reference checks, but the supervisor or manager who will be interacting with and interviewing the applicant should consider making the calls.  A supervisor or manager will not only benefit from getting the information directly, but they may also have an easier time getting high-level references to speak candidly about the applicant.

Consider obtaining consent

Getting the applicant’s consent before obtaining potentially sensitive information can help insulate you from liability. Further, former employers may be more at ease discussing the applicant if they know the applicant has approved of the contact.

What should be discussed?

Keep it at a professional level; not personal. Anything you ask should be relevant to the position with the goal being to find out about the applicant’s ability and how they will interact with others. Obviously, avoid any questions that could inadvertently lead to a discrimination or unfair hiring practices claim, such as inquiring about the person’s age or religion.

Know what you want to find out beforehand. People provide references whom they believe will say positive things, but this is not always the case. In the event a reference thinks poorly of the applicant, try to find out if their negative opinion is based on articulable, business-related reasons. While comments like, “she just was not a good fit at our company” can be appreciated, it is better to hear comments such as, “she was not a good fit at our company because she was repeatedly absent and needed constant oversight.”

Take notes

Information obtained during a reference check can be valuable evidence if a negligent hiring claim is later made by a third-party. For example, if the applicant is hired and subsequently is violent towards a customer, having records to show that none of the employee’s references offered any indication of violent behavior will support your defense that the hiring was not negligent.

Get necessary releases before going further

An applicant’s express permission is necessary before accessing some records, such as a credit report or criminal background check. Some records may be completely inaccessible, such as workers’ compensation information or medical records. If you have conducted the reference checks and are ready to take your interview process to the next level, make sure that you know what kind of releases are required.

 Maegan Pirtle and Shawn Beloin, Law Clerks for McBrayer, contributed to this article.

Social Signals Rank Highest for Best Google Search Results

A new study from Searchmetrics shows that of 44 ranking factors, social signals account for 7 of the top 8 most highly associated with Google search results,  The chart below shows the ranking importance for the top 22:
google search ranking factors in the US

The top findings from the Searchmetrics Ranking Factors-Rank Correlation Study show the following SEO trends for 2013:

  • Keyword domains and keyword links are not nearly as relevant as in the past
  • Social signals directly correlate with better rankings
  • Good content continues to be key
  • The number of backlinks continues to be of high importance
  • On-page technology (URL length, keywords in page titles, page descriptions, H1 and H2 tags, etc.) is still an important basic

This latest study makes it clear that you can no longer ignore social media if you are interested in showing up in Google search results.

Article By:

 of

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Requires Filing of Additional Oil Pipeline Rate Base Information

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

On July 18th, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) approved a final rule that makes substantive changes to the components of FERC Form 6, which interstate oil pipelines are required to file each year.[1] The rule requires additional reporting of the figures underlying pipelines’ rates of return and is intended to make it easier for both FERC and oil pipeline shippers to evaluate whether a given transportation rate complies with the law.

The new rule pertains to page 700 of Form 6, which provides information designed to show the pipeline’s cost of service, including O&M expenses, rate base, rate of return, total cost of service, revenues, and throughput. The purpose of this reporting is to provide a preliminary screen for determining whether a pipeline’s rates are “just and reasonable” as required by the Interstate Commerce Act.

In the final rule, FERC added new fields to page 700 that are intended to allow shippers to more easily calculate an oil pipeline’s actual rate of return on equity. The new required information, which FERC anticipates is already being developed in the preparation of the rate base and rate of return information required on existing page 700, is outlined briefly and at a high level below.

Interestingly, the Commission was asked by commenters to include additional changes to Form 6 in this rulemaking, including requiring companies that file Form 6 for multiple oil pipeline systems to file separate page 700s for each segment, service, or rate schedule. The Commission declined to do so in this proceeding as it was beyond the scope, but it should be noted that the consolidated Form 6’s and page 700’s that many companies currently file are alleged to mask the cost of service and rate of return for individual pipelines and services, and the comments in this proceeding suggest that shippers may continue to press FERC to require individualized page 700 filings in the future.

The changes to page 700 will take effect for the annual Form 6 filing for calendar year 2013, which is due April 18, 2014. These changes could enable new scrutiny of pipeline rates and complaints and challenges both to existing rates and to proposed annual rate increases under FERC regulations in the near future.

Outline of Page 700 Changes:

– Rate Base: While current page 700 requires the pipeline to report its rate base for each year, the revised page 700 will require this number to be broken out into three new components: Depreciated Original Cost; Unamortized Starting Rate Base Write-Up; and Accumulated Net Deferred Earnings.  The sum of these three components will equal the rate base number that was already required.

– Rate of Return: The existing rate of return percentage reported on page 700 is a weighted cost of capital; the new page 700 will require reporting of the cost of equity, costs of debt, and capital structure supporting the rate of return.

– Return on Rate Base: Currently, page 700 requires reporting of the return on rate base, combining the real return on equity and the portion of the return allocated to paying the pipeline’s cost of debt.  The revised page 700 requires breaking the return of rate base into separate debt and equity components.

– Composite Tax Rate: The revised page 700 will require pipelines to report the adjusted sum of the pipeline’s applicable state and federal income tax rates.

The stated purpose of the page 700 changes is to better enable the calculation of the actual return on equity of the pipeline, as adjusted for taxes, inflation and depreciation.  The final rule states that this calculation “is particularly useful information when using page 700 as a preliminary screen to evaluate whether additional proceedings may be necessary to challenge rates.”[2]

[1] Revisions to Page 700 of FERC Form No. 6, 144 FERC ¶ 61,049 (2013).

[2] Id. at P 36

Article By:

Converting Leads to Clients is Vital Part of Law Firm Marketing Strategy

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)

Generating leads is a vital part of any small law firm marketing strategy, but knowing how leads become clients and the cost for the conversion is just as important. The conversion of lead to paying client is what takes you from spending money to making money – which is really the reason you are in law firm.

To discover how the lead conversion process works in your law firm, you need to work with your staff to identify the stages of how prospects go to paying clients. Find out:

leads into a funnel

  • Who in the company is involved in the conversion process
  • The number of steps involved in the process
  • Where the conversion process begins
  • Who keeps the process moving
  • Who closes the process
  • Who tracks and reports on the process
  • The cost for each step in the conversion process

Once you have those answers, you should analyse your process to find opportunities to shorten it wherever possible. Look for any redundancies in actions or staff that can be removed. The goal is to have a lean process that delivers the results you want.

Once you have a handle on your process and its costs, you should now look at ways you can reduce your cost per lead. Find out:

  • The number of leads produced
  • The cost of converting those leads to clients
  • The amount of revenue each new client brings in

Like any other law firm process, your marketing efforts need to be as efficient as possible while still delivering your desired results.

Article By:

 of

Further Postponements of Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FATCA) Effective Dates Announced

DrinkerBiddle

Once again, the IRS has pushed back FATCA effective dates due to further delays in the process of finalizing FATCA materials.

Under Notice 2013-43, released July 12, 2013, several key effective dates have been deferred another six months, to July 1, 2014.  That date is now:

  • the first date on which FATCA withholding will apply to US-source payments;
  • the cut-off date for grandfathering of existing obligations; and
  • the date by which withholding agents generally will be required to implement new FATCA-compliant account opening procedures.

The process of foreign financial institutions registering with, and reporting to, the IRS as participating foreign financial institutions (PFFIs) has also been deferred:

  • The online registration mechanism that was to have been in place by the beginning of this month is now expected to become available in mid-August, and online registrations will not actually become effective before January 1, 2014.
  • The first reports that PFFIs will be required to begin filing in 2015 with respect to their U.S. accounts will be required to cover just the 2014 calendar year (rather than including the 2013 calendar year, as had previously been the case).

The notice also touches on procedures relating to the intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) that the US is still in the process of negotiating with a number of foreign countries.  These IGAs will be designed to facilitate FFIs’ compliance with FATCA through reporting of US accounts to the tax authorities in their home countries rather than having to register with the IRS as PFFIs.

 of

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Orders $435 Million Civil Penalty to Barclays Bank and $1-15 Million to Four Traders

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

On July 16, 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered Barclays Bank PLC to pay one of the largest civil penalties in its history — $435 million, 144 FERC ¶ 61.041 (2013). Four traders were also assessed penalties — $15M for trader Scott Connelly, and $1M each to traders Daniel Brin, Karen Levine and Ryan Smith. The Commission also found that Barclays should disgorge $34.9M, plus interest, in unjust profits. Barclays and the traders had elected FERC procedures that require FERC to assess the penalty without formal administrative adjudication, and then pursue enforcement of its assessment in an action in federal district court. The district court action includes a de novo review of the Commission’s findings. Early reports indicate that Barclays will fight the penalty in court.

These penalties were issued after FERC found that Barclays and its traders violated the Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 CFR §1c.2 (2012). The Commission found that Barclays and the traders manipulated California energy markets from November 2006 to December 2008 at the four most liquid trading points in the western U.S. — Mid-Columbia, Palo Verne, North Path 15 and South Path 15, Order at 2. Specifically, the Commission found that Barclays and the traders built a “significant volume of monthly index or fixed-price physical products” at a trading point “in a direction — long or short — opposite to fixed-for-floating financial swaps they held at that point.” The Commission noted that establishing these positions “had the effect of creating physical delivery or receipt obligations which Barclays was unable to meet in actual practice,” and that Barclays and the traders were able to “flatten” these positions (“achieve zero net physical obligations”) at the end of each day through the use of next-day fixed-price or cash physical products traded on the Intercontinental Exchange platform. FERC found that the trading activity at issue was “intended to move the Index rather than respond to market fundamentals and was generally uneconomic.” Order at 4.

The Commission further concluded that Barclays and the traders not only engaged in this manipulative trading scheme, but “they did so with the intent to commit fraud.” The Commission identified seven facts found during its investigation to support its conclusions:

  1. Barclays’ and the traders’ consistent pattern of building substantial positions directionally opposite their large swap positions and the subsequent flattening which would tend to move prices to benefit those swap positions;
  2. how the trading behavior in the “Manipulation Months” differed from months where there was no alleged manipulation;
  3. traders’ communications which discuss and describe the fraudulent scheme;
  4. Barclays and the traders responding to certain allegations, but completely failing to respond to FERC Office of Enforcement staff allegations regarding the building of positions as a manipulative scheme;
  5. the uneconomic nature of the trading;
  6. inconsistency in trader testimony and trader explanations presented in submissions;
  7. the failure of economic, statistical and legal analysis provided by Barclays and the traders to otherwise explain or defend the positions, swaps or trading.

In addition, FERC noted that it “considered various evidence to reach its conclusion concerning intent,” and provided examples of some of the compelling “speaking” evidence that it found demonstrates that the traders understood that they were making the trades to “drive price,” “protect” their positions and ”move” or “affect the Index.”

The parties have 30 days to pay the civil penalties assessed after which, the Commission can pursue enforcement of its assessment in federal district court. The parties continue to have the opportunity to settle the matter with the Commission. Absent a settlement, and unlike the DC Circuit’s decision in Hunter v. FERC, 711 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2013), this case may produce the first fully-adjudicated case on the merits of the Commission’s market manipulation theories.

Article By:

 of

Employment as Consideration in Employee Non-Competes: Less than Two Years is Not Enough

MUCHblue

The Illinois Appellate court very recently clarified a budding dispute among practitioners regarding what type of consideration is necessary to enforce a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement. In Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., in which our firm represented the employee and his new employer, the First District Illinois Appellate Court set forth this bright line rule — if the only consideration for a restrictive covenant is employment, then an employee has to work at least two years after signing the agreement before the non-compete or non-solicitation agreement can be enforced. This is true even if the restriction meets all other requirements (e.g., legitimate interest, reasonable scope).

This rule applies whether or not the agreement is signed at the beginning of employment or during, whether the employee quits or is fired. It simply doesn’t matter. Unless the employee has worked two years, the company will not be able to enforce that agreement unless some other adequate consideration is given for the restrictive covenant.

What does this mean to you? It means that if you hire a new employee and require her to sign a non-compete and that employee leaves a year after being hired, you will not be able to enforce that non-compete agreement no matter what. Indeed, based on the Fifield case, if the employee works one year and eleven months and then leaves, the agreement would still not be enforceable.

The same rule would apply if you ask an employee to sign a non-compete during his or her employment. After that agreement is signed, the employee has to work an additional two years for the agreement to be enforceable, provided that the only consideration for the agreement is employment.

And that is the loophole that the court has left employers: providing some other consideration besides employment. For example, if a company gives a real (not an illusory or nominal) signing bonus, the employer would have a fairly good argument that it has provided adequate consideration to enforce the agreement. Perhaps a promotion would work as well, although that is more problematic since a promotion is still basically employment. After promoting its employee, nothing prevents the company from then firing the employee, if employment is at will. If, on the other hand, the employee was hired for a particular amount of time (at least two years) during which he or she could not be fired without cause, that could itself be sufficient consideration since it would arguably constitute two years of employment even if the employee quit early.

Another, albeit untested possibility would be to draft the restrictive covenant in such a way that the post-employment restriction would be equal to the length of time that the employee actually works. So if the employee leaves after one year, then she or he is restricted for one year. To be enforceable, the restriction would likely have to have some maximum period of time. Probably two to three years at the most.

As you can see, this new ruling has significant implications. At the very least, every company should carefully review its non-compete and non-solicitation agreements to see if they are supported by adequate consideration. If they don’t, then you should discuss with your attorneys how best to rectify the situation. You certainly do not want your former employees going to competitors singing, “I can’t get no consideration.”

Article By:

 of

Law Firm Search Engine Optimization (SEO): Five Common Mistakes to Avoid

Correct Consults Logo

Long gone are the days when you could rely only on meta descriptions, title tags, and directory links to boost your firm’s website rankings in search engines. Thanks (or no thanks) to sites using destructive black-hat techniques, Google is on a mission to penalize those who try to win using spammy shortcuts, and reward sites that provide a great user experience.

Below is a list of 5 common mistakes in SEO that can be easily avoided:

Duplicate Content, Consultwebs1. Content that is engaging.

Search engines are designed to deliver the highest quality results to the user; therefore, your content should provide the answer to the visitor’s search query as well as a great user experience. If a user comes to your website and is not impressed with the content, they will quickly leave. When this happens, it indicates to search engines that your site is not offering supportive and relevant content based on that particular search query. You do not want this! You want users to visit your site and be engaged. Remember: write for your readers, not search engines.

2. Duplicate content

Duplicate content, in simple terms, is content that appears on more than one Web page. This is akin to a constantly skipping CD. In short, it’s annoying.

Google can easily determine when content is duplicated. One of the relatively new Google features is Google Authorship

To ensure they are offering users high value content, search engines take pages out of the rankings that are a duplication of other, higher authority pages. Also, duplicate content can lead to Google not trusting the overall quality of the site and penalizing its rankings.

Search engines want to provide users with a varied amount of results, not 20 pages with the same content. To ensure this, search engines omit pages that are a duplication of other, higher authority pages. Omitted pages don’t rank.

Additionally, if Google finds your duplicate content to be spammy, deceptive or an attempt to manipulate your rankings, Google may penalize your site by dropping its rankings.

3. Not using correct keywords

If a user cannot find your website, then what good is it?

If a website’s content is written about the term “vehicle wrecks,” but the majority of users are searching for “car accidents,” the website will miss out on a lot of potential business. It’s crucial to use the correct keyword targets to drive optimal traffic to your website.Target the right words by looking for terms most commonly used in searches. Our SEO specialists use a variety of tools, including Google’s keyword tool,to determine the words and phrases that have the highest search volume for your area of law. However, targeting only the most popular keywords may not improve your rankings. The higher the search volume for a keyword, the more websites you will compete with for rankings, so it’s vital to find a happy medium between the two. Don’t forget, however, that long tail searches (lesser used phrases words and phrases) obtain more relevant traffic than the highest volume words and phrases.

4. Over-optimization

Yes, there is such a thing as over-optimization!

Tactics such as excessive interlinking,keyword stuffed content and tags, and duplicate content within the same site are common over-optimization practices that can hurt your rankings.

Typically, anything over 3% keyword density is too much for a page. Links should only be placed on a page if they are relevant to the content posted on that same page. Remember the saying “too much of a good thing is bad?” Well, that pertains to SEO as well.

5. Assuming that SEO strategies are static. SEO is constantly changing!

There is no such thing as updating a site and never having to do so again. Google constantly changes its algorithm (examples: panda, penguin, so a website has to be reviewed occasionally. What works today may not work tomorrow; it’s important to stay up-to-date on SEO practices used on your site.

Also, by having a blog on your site and adding new posts regularly, you are providing fresh, new content. Google loves fresh content.

Article By:

 of

Virtual Communications with Real Consequences: Terminations for Social Media Posts Continue to Draw the Attention of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

Michael Best Logo

In the late autumn of 2012, an otherwise innocuous private Facebook discussion amongst employees of Skinsmart Dermatology (Skinsmart) suddenly devolved into an expletive-laced tirade. At one point during the conversation an employee boasted that she told her supervisor to “back the freak off,” called her employer “full of sh**,” and dared Skinsmart to “fire” her and “[m]ake [her] day.”

Notably, none of the other participants in the Facebook chat directly responded to the employee’s comments. One of those participants, however, reported the employee’s remarks to Skinsmart, who promptly fired her after concluding that it was “obvious” she did not want to continue working there.

Following her termination, the employee filed an Unfair Labor Practice Charge (ULP) with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) claiming that Skinsmart fired her in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA prohibits an employer from interfering with or restraining an employee’s right to engage in “protected concerted activities.”

As background, “protected” activities include discussing wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment with coworkers. “Concerted” activities include: (1) when an individual employee seeks to “initiate or to induce or to prepare for group action”; (2) where an individual employee brings “truly group complaints” to management’s attention; and (3) where employees discuss “shared concerns” among themselves prior to any specific plan to engage in group action.

After analyzing the evidence, the NLRB’s Division of Advice recommended dismissal of the employee’s ULP Charge. First, it found the terminated employee’s Facebook comments were “an individual’s gripe” rather than an expression of “shared concerns” over working conditions among employees. Second, it found there was no evidence that the terminated employee’s coworkers viewed her remarks as an assertion of shared concerns regarding employment conditions. Consequently, the Division of Advice concluded that the employee did not participate in concerted activity, and therefore Skinsmart did not illegally fire her in response to her Facebook comments.

Significantly, before recommending dismissal of the ULP Charge, the Division of Advice also considered whether the terminated employee’s comments constituted “inherently concerted” activity that deserved protection under the NLRA.[1] While the Division of Advice ultimately ruled that they were not, its consideration of “inherently concerted” activity suggests that it will continue to interpret “protected concerted activity” as broadly as it can.

Under the “inherently concerted” analysis, an employee’s expressions may be considered protected concerted activity if those expressions involve “subjects of such mutual workplace concern” like wages, schedules, and job security, even if there was no contemplation of group action. Because the employee’s posts did not relate to any of those mutual workplace concerns, the Division of Advice concluded, the employee did not engage in “inherently concerted” activity.

In light of Skinsmart, before taking any adverse action against an employee for inappropriate social media communications, an employer should scrutinize the employee’s comments to determine whether they constitute an individual gripe or protected concerted activity. Because the NLRB has targeted “Facebook firings” as infringing on employees’ right to engage in protected concerted activity, we recommend that employers undertake this analysis with the benefit of counsel to minimize their exposure to a ULP Charge or other legal action.

[1] The term, “inherently concerted,” arose out of an earlier NLRB decision in 2012. See Hoodview Vending Co., 359 N.L.R.B. No. 36 (2012).

Article By:

 of

Brain Spray and the Law

Womble Carlyle

Now that we can capture and use the signals emitted by human brains, we should consider whether brain signals are public property. If your face and voice become available to the public through use, is the same true for your thoughts, when they can be read by others?

Several recent news items have illustrated the progress humans have made in understanding the brain’s workings and harnessing an active brain for practical purposes. For example, this week, Duke University researcher Miguel Nicolelis used microchips and the internet to connect the brains of two mice on different continents, so that the thoughts of one can influence the actions of the other. Much of Dr Nicolelis’s work involves creating an exoskeleton that a paralysed person could operate with brain signals.

Similarly, University of Pittsburgh researcher Andrew Schwartz has been working since 2006 to find ways for a person to control a robotic arm with only brain signals. In February 2013, surgeons implanted four microchips in a paralysed patient’s brain that translate her brain’s signals into movement in robotic equipment. 60 Minutes and ABC News showed a video of the Pittsburgh patient feeding herself ice cream through brain signals to a robotic arm.

Such scientific work involving directed brain signals seems like science fiction, but the technology is available right now, and will only improve over time, and soon will be available commercially. Right now, the most rudimentary brain-driven technology can be purchased. High-end toy emporium Hammecher Schlemmer sells a “Telekinetic Obstacle Course” that use focused brain waves to manoeuvre a ball through an obstacle course. The game comes with a headband to read your brain signals and then wirelessly transmit those signals to the game’s air fan, which increases or decreases speed depending on your signal, blowing a foam ball around an obstacle course.

For example, Australian scientist and entrepreneur Tan Le, the founder of Emotiv Lifescience, has created a headset that serves as an interface for reading the wearer’s brainwaves, making it possible to control virtual and physical objects with directed thoughts. Eventually the headset will be conditioned for diagnostic use, but current products using the brain-interface headset for videogames, allowing users to drive virtual race cars with their concentrated thoughts.

Modern science has identified two types of “brain spray”, or signals that can be harnessed from outside of a person’s skull. The first is the directed thoughts described in the examples above, where certain voluntary brain signals, created by the subject concentrating on a goal or action, are read and translated by either a device worn by the subject or by microchips placed in the subject’s head. Research into this field, including US government funded research by DARPA, may lead to practical solutions allowing wounded veterans or other people with disabilities to grasp, drive, walk and talk again.

This type of brain spray will lead to legal concerns. For example, if a wounded soldier is offered a limb that responds to his thoughts, the company providing the limb will want to capture information from the electronics that capture brain signals, both for understanding and improving the equipment and for monitoring its use. Could a disabled person say “no” to the company who was offering a newly functional life, or would he be forced to sign away his brain spray for benefit of science and a company providing the equipment.

We all know that our signals from laptops and smartphones are captured by any number of companies – telephone signal providers, hardware manufacturers, app developers, banks and payment businesses – when we undertake actions or transactions over the internet. There is no reason that the same rules would not apply to our directed thoughts when our computing devices are controlled by focused brain signals. Google is already testing computing in the form of eyeglasses that could easily be equipped to read such brain spray and turn it into both action and data. Our thoughts would be available to our service providers.

The other brain spray that can be captured and turned to practical use is translation of brain activation signals currently read by functional magnetic resonance imagining machines (fMRI). These signals are more intrusive than the focused brain signals described above, because the fMRI provides pictures of what part of a human brain is activated by situations or stimuli. The fMRI pictures can easily be interpreted as triggers for various emotions. Because certain emotions trigger activity in specific parts of the brain, fMRI brain spray comes close to showing what the subject is feeling about the situation he is in.

Scientists currently read and interpret the emotional and logical meanings of fMRI signals from the human brain. In a 2008 article for Atlantic Monthly, Jeffrey Goldberg submitted himself to brain readings where scientists used MRI scanning to observe which areas of Goldberg’s brain reacted to certain images. The scientist showed Goldberg pictures of personal, political and cultural figures, recording his brain’s involuntary reactions with the MRI machine and noting when his brain activated in areas indicating affection and affinity for certain pictures (Goldberg’s wife and Bruce Springsteen) and revulsion at other pictures (Osama bin Laden).

This technology is attractive to corporations wanting to know how to stimulate your urge to buy their products and to see how you react to their advertising. However, do you want companies to know this much about you? Current law holds that if you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, then you cannot stop anyone from harvesting information from you. For example, when you are out on the public roads or when you walk up to an Automated Teller Machine at the bank, you are subjecting your appearance, your facial expressions and even your body itself, to scrutiny, photography, recordation and information capture by other people (or the bank) who share your public space.

If your appearance, your voice, and even your DNA is available to everyone in public (many US courts allow police to collect a suspect’s DNA in public places without a warrant), then why would this rule not extend to your brain spray when you enter the public area at a time that mobile fMRI technology or other brain signal capture technology is commercially available? Exposing your brain signals in public may be no different from exposing your face or your voice at the same time. Why would you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your brain spray when you know it can be read by anyone with the right equipment? Many will argue that once your body is in a public space, then it can be read by the government or business in any way that they are able.

If there were limits to the use of this technology to read your exposed brain signals, situational rules would have to be developed. For example, when fMRI technology is cost-effective and practical to use from a distance, should you automatically submit to brain scanning just by walking into a certain store, casino, bank or government building? Will companies provide notice before scanning you? Will the scan data be linked to your credit card purchases to identify you, linked to the uniform identifier in your smartphone, or linked to RFID tags in the products you buy?

This technology also has national security applications for interpreting malice in sensitive situations. The government may be able to read a suspect’s brain activity to identify intent to act before the crime takes place, scanning banks and airports for signs of potentially criminal intent. But our criminal law is based on punishment for actions, not thoughts or intentions. Everyone has intemperate thoughts of anger, frustration and fantasies of outrageous exploits, but people manage to keep those ideas in their heads and not act on them. How much do you want the government to know about your unfiltered thoughts, once those thoughts can be read from outside your head?

Once the technology is widely available, anyone could use its invasive and interpretive powers. Employers may examine their workers for hostile thoughts toward management or sympathetic thoughts toward labour organisers. Colleges can probe their applicants’ level of enthusiasm for learning. The military could test for signs of homosexuality in recruits without asking or telling. Lawyers and investigators in divorce cases would have a new avenue to examine unfaithful behaviour. How quickly would enthusiastic opposition dig up the thought crimes of political candidates?

Our laws are inadequate for addressing these issues or protecting the privacy of our brain spray. Current privacy law in the United States would not prohibit harvesting brain spray and would not even require an individual’s permission to do so. The current American privacy laws relating to reading your biometric measurements and physical condition only apply to body signs taken for health care purposes.

If a hospital records your blood type or your DNA to test for disease, those records are private and you have the right to keep them from being used for other purposes. However, a reading of your body, including your DNA and your brain spray, is not protected from transmission or sale between companies if the reading was taken for security, marketing or intelligence purposes. The recorded thoughts showing your excitement at the perfect little black dress or those used to power your prosthetic arm may be transferred to anyone. The law leaves you vulnerable.

Brain spray is the ultimate prize in the larger security and privacy debate concerning what personal facts may be captured by commercial or governmental interests. Why bother asking you what you think about a politician or a product when a company can read it directly from your brain? Without legal change, finding out who really loves “mom”, apple pie and America could soon be as simple as a head examination.

Originally published March 22, 2013 in the International edition of Intellectual Property Magazine Online

Article By:

 of

Powered by
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
Powered by