ReputationDefender
Press Room

How do you bring a vision to life?  Michael Fertik talks innovation and entrepreneurship at the 2012 Blouin Leadership Summit.

They say nothing on the Internet ever really goes away, but the Texas Supreme Court is considering whether defamatory postings might be worth the effort to try.

Justices on the state's highest civil court on Thursday weighed broader questions about cyberbullying, hate speech and the First Amendment while hearing a case with far lower stakes. At issue is whether a company can be forced to remove from its website damaging personal comments about a fired Austin businessman.

Lower courts already have ruled that Robert Kinney's former company, Los Angeles-based BCG Attorney Search, can't be forced to remove the comments, even if a judge or jury eventually finds it defamed Kinney on the company's website by accusing him of running a kickback scheme. That's because defamatory speech still has protections under the law.

But Kinney's attorneys told the nine-member court that it's time for Texas law to catch up with technology.

"It was a little harder to defame someone before the Internet. Now, on my cellphone, I can walk out of here and in five minutes I can say something defamatory about somebody and hit a button, and it's there worldwide," said Martin Siegel, Kinney's attorney. "And it's potentially there for perpetuity."

Anthony Ricciardelli, an attorney for BCG, said forcing the comments to be removed would "set a dangerous precedent that will have a chilling effect on speech and may lead to a slippery slope."

The court isn't expected to make a ruling for several months.

Justices asked both sides to consider more divisive cases involving cyberbullying or hate speech — whether a court should be able to issue orders to stop online antagonists from harassing others, for instance, even if no defamation was present.

Siegel said it's time for Texas to join a "modern rule" of decisions in five other states where injunctions against defamatory speech have been granted. The Kentucky Supreme Court in 2010 ruled in a case that the future speech of a party could be restrained so long its original comments were ruled defamatory.

Michael Fertik, the CEO and founder of reputation.com, said the broader problem of defamation in the digital age needs to be addressed. He said people need to be "giving a fighting chance" and pointed to how publishers can be forced to remove defamatory material from books before additional printings.

"There's a solution in the print world for that. In the online world, there is no solution," Fertik said.

Kinney now runs another legal recruiting firm in Texas and said the damage done by the comments "isn't breaking me." Courts likely would have let his case proceed if he was seeking financial damages from his old boss instead of having the online remarks erased, but Kinney says he wants to help others in similar situations.

"Hopefully it'll be a public service," he said.

Original article: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/high-texas-court-weights-damaging-online-comments-21482182

Evangelist is a word that’s bandied around all too often in the business world. But when you meet a person that really is on a mission, that tired old phrase seems to waken up a little. Michael Fertik, CEO of ReputationDefender, industry commentator and Forbes contributor, more or less invented the sector of online reputation management six years ago and now protects the digital good character of about 1.6 million customers. A few years ago, he was just another big-talking startup founder with a great idea – and more than $60 million in venture capital. Now, after Edward Snowden opened the eyes of the world to the extent of government and private sector surveillance, he wants more. On his desk in Redmond City, Calif., Fertik keeps a quote from the Talmud which reads: “You are not required to finish your work, but nor are you permitted to desist from it.” This time around protecting the public from the internet is not just Fertik’s job, it’s his crusade.

 “I have been tilting against really big windmills for five or six years,” he tells me over expensive martinis at an upscale London hotel. “The cool kids from the tech or legal eagle law school background thought everything I stood for was against free speech; that I was a command and control censorship dick. I had to be a turn the other cheek guy, which is difficult because I’m an Old Testament guy, too

“Now the cool kids think we’re the internet freedom fighters, that we’re the guys who are gonna give you control of the machine which would otherwise dominate your life.”

We’re meeting because he’s extending his business into Europe. ReputationDefender has recently opened an office in Liverpool and hired the former CEO of a car sales website called We Buy Any Car to run it. Fertik’s happy to have founded an office in the north of England, which is still sneered at by Londoners, because he seems to relish flying in the face of established convention. And yes, he’s delighted with the performance of his spin-off company in Germany, a notoriously privacy-conscious nation which once made up 20 percent of his company’s growth. But what he really wants to talk about is his life mission, which has shifted into a new gear. He wants to save us from the Internet, which is run by companies that “collect your data without your knowledge or permission and sell it to an unidentified person  for purposes you can never know”, a phrase he repeats like a mantra throughout our conversation.

“I am reluctant to call Silicon Valley malevolent,” he says. “It’s accidentally malevolent. I see myself at the vanguard of a benevolent Internet. There has always been this myth that the Internet is democratic, which it is when it comes to consumption of data, but not when it comes to the use of your data. Here’s the problem: if you run an Internet advertising business based on selling your customers’ data, then you cannot care deeply about someone’s privacy, even if you want to. Accidentally, on purpose, Silicon Valley has reversed into this inadvertent panopticon.”

Since Harvard-educated Fertik quit his job as a legal clerk to launch ReputationDefender (formerly known as Reputation Defender), he has faced a number of criticisms as well as successes. Basically, his firm issues take down notices to websites hosting content or, for a larger fee, can massage Google GOOG +0.04% rankings to shift good stuff up and move bad links back down the rankings. Some critics claimed Fertik’s business had a chilling effect on free speech. Others said his more expensive services allowed rich people to prune their online profiles in manner that is simply unavailable to anyone who can’t stump up $10,000 to promote flattering links to the top of a Google search. He’s scathing about all these naysayers.

“Why does Google get to decide who you are based on an opaque algorithm that is known to only five or six people on the planet?” he asks. “We began with the proposition that Google is no God, the truth or the first amendment. It’s just a machine.”

In the past six years, Fertik has watched the public and big business change its perspective on privacy, particularly after the exposure of the PRISM surveillance scheme. From a position where he was on something of a lone mission, the reputation wrangler has won more allies in recent years than ever before. When I ask who these are, he replies: “That’s a Jedi question. It’s a Yoda question. I’m going to invoke the almighty word Davos. I’ve been going for three years and I’ve seen the world move since then.”

At the meetings of the World Economic Forum, where Fertik sits on the Global Agenda Council on Internet Security, he has held conversations with the sort of institutions that hold even more information than Google or Facebook, such as banks, ISPs, healthcare companies and insurance firms. “By the third year I went to Davos, these people had realized there was a trillion dollars to be made from our proposition, which is that you should have some control over your data. Our allies are the people who have the data but who aren’t allowed to use it. They are everywhere.”

Now the world is waking up to privacy in a big way, with brand names such as famous anti-virus firm AVG predicting this emerging sector would make up a huge part of its future business. Siobhan MacDermott, chief policy officer at the AVG, once told me she had been in talks with five major banks,, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan, about the possibilities on offer in the world of privacy. It’s clear to see how delighted Fertik is by this turnaround.

“I am hoping PRISM is to the privacy industry was the Michelangelo virus was for the antivirus industry in 1992. You can interpret that as a commercial statement, because this stuff gives us life and I’m in business to be in business. But you can interpret it as a statement of mission. Like a lot of Silicon Valley guys, I’m very mission driven.”

I guess a lot of tech people say that sort of thing. But there’s something about Fertik that makes his claims to change the internet convincing, as it’s being done not just for principle, but for profit too. As we shake hands and he disappears off down a London, he shouts back at me: “Remember. You and me, we’re part of the rebel army.” I kind of believe him, which is what all evangelists make people do, isn’t it?

Original article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasperhamill/2014/01/08/catching-up-with-michael-fertik-still-on-a-mission-to-save-you-from-the-internet/

Photo credit: Luc Van Braekel

How do you bring a vision to life?  Michael Fertik talks innovation and entrepreneurship at the 2012 Blouin Leadership Summit.

Though most people wouldn’t give their phone number to a stranger on the street, they’re happy to share their digits with Google, Facebook, and other sites. But as millions of young Snapchat users just learned, phone numbers are valuable information to hackers.

On Wednesday, Snapchat became the first company to have its data hacked in 2014 when 4.6 million account usernames and partial phone numbers were posted online as a warning to those using the photo messaging service. “Our motivation behind the release was to raise the public awareness around the issue, and also put public pressure on Snapchat to get this exploit fixed,” the alleged hackers told tech site TheVerge.com . A spokeswoman for Snapchat declined to comment, but the company released a blog post saying it’s added counter-measures “to combat spam and abuse.”

Consumers should be wary about sharing their mobile numbers, security experts say. “Phone numbers are unique identifiers that tend to last for a long time,” says Michael Fertik, CEO at ReputationDefender, a site that helps consumers protect their privacy online. “You change your phone number much less often than your IP address and probably even your home address.” While Snapchat users have fake usernames, many people use the same I.D. across a range of social networks, says Graham Cluley, a U.K. security blogger and technology consultant. “Use a different user I.D. than the one you use publicly on Facebook and Twitter,” he says. What’s more, typing just a mobile number into Facebook will reveal the profiles of the owner if he or she added it to their account .

Why hackers want your cellphone number

If you wouldn't give your cellphone number to a stranger, why would you give it to a website? As Snapchat users found, there's money to be made from knowing your cellphone number, Quentin Fottrell reports. Photo: Getty Images.

Snapchat’s alleged data breach is also a misstep for a company founded on the principle of preserving your online anonymity. Launched in September 2011, social networkers can send “Snaps”—photos or videos—that last between 1 and 10 seconds, depending on the time limit set by the sender. The service—which reportedly spurned a $3 billion offer from Facebook last November—has over 100 million users and shares 400 million snaps daily. “It’s embarrassing for Snapchat,” Cluley says, but could be more embarrassing for its users. After all, photos can be saved by recipients who “screen-grab” them in time. “These photos and mobile numbers could potentially be used for cyber-bullying and blackmail,” he says, especially if they’re connected to a real name.

Hackers can also fake a caller I.D. by using your number to sidestep a security step, says Bo Holland, founder and CEO of AllClear ID, an identity protection firm. Even without a real name, however, consumers can be spammed with text messages—known as “smishing”—asking people to click on links that contain malware—a virus that can retrieve data stored there: photos, contact lists, emails and passwords. “Phone numbers are a building block for hackers,” says Adam Levin, co-founder of online security company Identity Theft 911. Some 37.3 million Internet users faced phishing attacks in 2013, an 87% rise over the last three years, according to a survey from online security company Kaspersky Lab. “Smartphones are not just communication devices,” Levin says. “They are data storage devices.”

So why do companies want your mobile number? “It’s is a necessary and useful part of e-commerce,” Fertik says, “but you should not give it without a specific reason.” For those waiting for a package or taking a flight, for example, it helps to receive a text message about delays. Plus, mobile numbers can be a useful two-factor authentication, says e-commerce consultant Bryan Eisenberg. Step 1: input your username and password to your email, social networking or bank account. Step 2: receive a text message to validate any changes. This can also be done with a secondary email address or Google Voice number that redirects calls and texts to your cell; for that reason, Eisenberg has given his mobile number to Google, but hasn't given it to Facebook. He doesn’t have a Snapchat account.

Original article: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-hackers-want-your-phone-number-2014-01-03/print?guid=3AAACABC-73F9-11E3-A8F2-00212803FAD6

How do you bring a vision to life?  Michael Fertik talks innovation and entrepreneurship at the 2012 Blouin Leadership Summit.

How do you bring a vision to life?  Michael Fertik talks innovation and entrepreneurship at the 2012 Blouin Leadership Summit.

This op-ed was authored by MIchael Fertik, ReputationDefender's CEO and Founder

Companies are actively, aggressively targeting you using your own personal data, without your knowledge or permission.

That’s not good for your privacy, but it’s hardly news – except when it’s the healthcare industry. 

Yesterday, news broke that healthcare companies are identifying all manner of pertinent medical details about you without setting eyes on your medical chart.  How?  Personal habits – all gleaned online and aggregated into detailed, invasive profiles using data mining algorithms.

The news is alarming: Big Pharma companies figuring out what patients might be interested in an obesity drug based on clues that imply a couch-potato existence, others finding participants for a study using clues based on data mining, people getting called at home by medical telemarketers who know more than a few sensitive details about their health.

Is it a violation of HIPAA?  Amazingly, no – all of these very personal details are inferred based on probability (likely accurate but probability nonetheless), not by talking to your doctor illegally.  Yet it’s clearly an overstep into an ethically gray area.  And that’s why the question of consumer protection is one that should weigh heavily on everyone’s minds.

Right now, it’s recruiting patients for a drug study that one could argue might help that person and countless others.

Right now, it’s making others aware of new medicines that may work for their particular conditions.

Yet it doesn’t take a privacy advocate or a confirmed cynic to make that very short leap from these semi-benign approaches to other, more detrimental uses of personal health data.  Perhaps it’s a large Fortune 500 company that would much prefer to hire a workforce full of hale and healthy individuals who won’t drive up their premiums.  (Goodbye, older workers, disabled employees, people with imperfect BMIs, workers with chronic but manageable diseases!). Maybe it’s the spouse who picks up the phone and learns from a telemarketer that his wife is pregnant or that her husband is worried about early signs of dementia.  In fact, that has already happened – Target was able to market to a pregnant teen before her own father even knew she was expecting a baby, all thanks to her shopping habits.

In the age of social media, we have become so comfortable with free apps and services that personal inertia has replaced our concern, even outrage, on how companies use this data.

If understanding that companies can now legally skirt HIPAA – your lawful protection for medical privacy – and use information not just to target you but to perhaps discriminate against you, then I don’t know what will shatter our complacency when it comes to personal privacy.

When the 19-year-old-son of a very wealthy client told friends on Facebook that his family was going on vacation in Hawaii, he didn't give it a second thought, financial adviser Chris Roe recalls.

Two weeks later, the family returned to find their home ransacked. They now suspect that the posting on their son's public Facebook profile tipped off the robbers, says Mr. Roe, an executive wealth counselor at Waldron Wealth Management in Bridgeville, Pa.

More advisers are teaching the children of clients about a non-financial, but increasingly important aspect of wealth–that is, how it should be handled on social media. Some are teaming up with public relations professionals and security experts to educate them about the need to be discreet.

"What other kids may perceive as normal on social media can be very dangerous for these kids," says Howard Bragman, vice chairman of ReputationDefender, a Los Angeles firm that helps family offices manage the public images of wealthy and famous clients.

Not just burglars, but kidnappers, can track the whereabouts of a wealthy family's members through their postings on Facebook, Twitter and other such sites.

Mr. Bragman says he also counsels children to be careful about disclosing any details of their parents' business dealings. A tweet about a family dinner table conversation, where a parent discussed a new product launch or strategy change, could cause harm to the business or that parent's professional position.

Con-artists are known to stalk the rich on the Internet. Christopher Falkenberg, president of Insite Security in New York, tells the story of a college freshman from a wealthy family who met an attractive girl on campus. They started dating, became more involved and he took her home to meet his parents at Thanksgiving.

The parents found her behavior suspicious and asked Mr. Falkenberg to look into her background. He discovered she wasn't a student as she had claimed and sought out the son after learning of his presence at the school from social- media posts. Confronted with this information, the woman eventually confessed.

"The main mistake most young heirs make is a naiveté about just how far people will go to gain access to them," he says.

Something the wealthy should consider, says Chris Cincera of Waldron Wealth Management, is how any activity on social media can become public knowledge. Mr. Cincera holds private meetings and webinars on the "Do's and Don'ts of Social Media" for the children of the wealthy.

He works with families to create a written social-media policy that every member is expected to follow. It will spell out if, how and when it is acceptable to post pictures of family members, for instance, or to give their full names. He encourages families to frequently review the policy and keep a copy on their smartphones for reference.

These days, social-media sites are a rich source of information for those who now how to use them–and mine them. Using a site's security settings can help limit access, so Ann Freel, director of family education and governance services at Northern Trust Wealth Management in Chicago, recommends to her clients that they use the strictest privacy settings possible.

Ms. Freel also tells clients to stay away from sites where other participants in a group or through an app can make exceptions to a user's privacy settings.

These days many smartphones have "location services" using satellite positioning to track where users are. Matt Unger, chief digital officer at K2 Intelligence in New York, tells the wealthy to turn them off. He also recommends using a real camera, as opposed to a smartphone camera, to take any photographs for posting, so that the location won't be revealed.

It's even more important for the wealthy to avoid embarrassing photos and posts, as those might tarnish a family's good name, harm their business or philanthropic interests or even cause them to be blackmailed.

To avoid those types of issues, Amy Zehnder, a senior wealth dynamics coach for Ascent Private Capital Management of U.S. Bank in Denver, urges clients to use their common sense when it comes to social media.

"If you wouldn't share it with Grandma, don't share it online," she says.

Timothy Speiss, chairman of the Personal Wealth Advisory practice at EisnerAmper in New York, tells heirs to use alias email and social media names. He typically recommends they post or tweet pictures about their vacations and charitable activities when they are back home.

Bill Loftus, founding partner at LLBH Private Wealth Management in Westport, Conn., helps some heirs interview public relations firms. He'll help them look for firms that can filter the public information available about them, better the control the content that first comes up when a Google search is done on their name and shape their social media presence.

But above all, financial advisers and security professionals generally recommend heirs fly below the radar– especially when it comes to using social media.

"Keep a very low profile," says Mr. Loftus.

Original article: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303773704579266032488810364

How do you bring a vision to life?  Michael Fertik talks innovation and entrepreneurship at the 2012 Blouin Leadership Summit.