Nasir and Matt close out the week by talking about the Indian restaurant in New York City that was fined for trying to hire an Indian waiter or waitress.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: All right. Welcome to our podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist. My name is Nasir Pasha and I’m hungry.

MATT: And I’m Matt Staub and I was actually going to comment; I could tell that you were because you, you know, it was straight business when you ran through that intro. It’s not going to get any easier for you because we’re talking about a restaurant.

NASIR: And all these articles have nice pictures of Indian food on it.

MATT: What are they called? Above the fold?

NASIR: Yeah, like header image. I’m literally staring at that right now, by the way.

MATT: What is that dish?

NASIR: It looks like it’s a standard chicken tikka or masala or a buttered chicken masala. I’m not sure which.

MATT: I was thinking masala but I wasn’t sure. I don’t know. It’s not pizza so I don’t know.

NASIR: I’m no expert though.

MATT: It’s either pizza or other for me.

NASIR: I was looking for some pizza episodes for today.

MATT: We’ll try to bring one in next week. Anyways, we have this Indian restaurant and it put up an ad for an experienced Indian waiter or waitress. Okay. It did this in October 2013. And then…

NASIR: Wait. Wait, if you’re listening to this, pause and think about that and see if you can tell if there’s something wrong with that posting. By the way, it’s okay if you don’t get it because it’s not obvious.

MATT: So, we have an Indian restaurant. It looks like a pretty authentic Indian restaurant looking for an experienced Indian waiter or waitress. As a result, the city’s Commission on Human Rights went after this restaurant and ended up, well, the fine was actually initially bigger. It got pushed down. It went after it to fine them because of, I guess, the discriminatory way that they put up the ad in terms of asking for an Indian waiter or waitress. Now, they did say waiter or waitress which actually is an issue I guess that could also be brought up. You can’t just put waitress; you have to put wait person. Like, actor or actress to me is kind of the same thing. I don’t really, you know…

NASIR: Can a waitress be a waiter and a waiter not be a waitress? Kind of like an actor be an actress but an actress can’t be an actor or vice versa?

MATT: People in the industry that are female in the acting industry call themselves “actors” and not “actresses.” Actresses, I guess, refers to a lesser. But isn’t it “best actress” in the Golden Globes and all that?

NASIR: I thought so. Maybe there was a connotation to it that we’re not aware of?

MATT: I don’t know.

NASIR: I used to be an actor for about 26 years or so then I quit because it got too Hollywood for me.

MATT: You were in all of those movies.

NASIR: Yeah, all of those. We don’t need to name them though.

MATT: Yeah, you were in all the Rocky movies.

NASIR: That’s about the right age, right timing for 26 years.

MATT: Well, let me finish this up here. So, they hit them with a fine. The law doesn’t allow ads that discriminate based on national origin. It ends up going to hearing. The funny part is – or one of the funny parts are – that, by the time that this hearing happened, it ended up being a year since the business had closed. So, the business wasn’t even open. It’s a pretty ridiculous premise to begin with and I guess the judge felt so bad that they reduced the fine from $7,500 to $5,000 – still saying that there was a discriminatory ad based on national origin even though it was an authentic Indian restaurant looking for an Indian waiter or waitress.

NASIR: Yeah. Let’s first talk about this commission because this is something unique – the New York City’s Commission on Human Rights. That’s not something very typical but is specifically in New York City. I’m trying to think if there’s anything else equivalent.

Nasir and Matt discuss the National Labor Review Board's challenge of an employer's social media policy andthe reason why the employer was able to prevail.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: All right. Welcome to our podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist. My name is Nasir Pasha.

MATT: And I’m Matt Staub.

NASIR: And that is all. I’m going to stop talking now because I tend to just… you pause and then I get nervous and then I don’t know what to say.

MATT: You come in so excited and then it’s just stage fright. You’ve only memorized that first line.

NASIR: Exactly. No, I might as well just end the podcast. I don’t know what I’m doing. I need a script.

MATT: I don’t think it’d be as exciting if we read straight off a script. It’d probably be more factually accurate but…

NASIR: Probably, instead of like, “Okay, what are we covering today?” Well, what are we covering today? Social media policies, right?

MATT: Yeah, social media policies and I guess employer policies in general. It kind of springs off this social media policy case. It’s actually, well, I’m a little bit surprised. It’s usually that it comes down pretty harsh on employers. We’ll see if everyone can follow me on this to explain the procedure of how this case worked. The general council on the NLRB – National Labor Review Board, I believe – they challenged an employer’s social media policy saying it was unlawful – basically saying it was too restrictive, prohibited protected activity – essentially free speech it looks like. General accounts of NLRB challenges this policy as unlawful which then went in front of an administrative law judge which decided that the policy was in fact not unlawful. Then, it was reviewed by the NLRB that affirmed the ALJ’s decision that the policy was not unlawful. Long story short, this policy of Landry’s Inc…

NASIR: Is not unlawful lawful.

MATT: Yeah.

NASIR: Is that what it is?

MATT: Yeah. You know, I was reading something written by an attorney the other day and it had so many just negatives in it. It was just impossible to read. Like, “Just use clear language.”

NASIR: Yeah.

MATT: It was a court decision so it was even worse.

NASIR: That’s even worse, yeah, written by a lawyer, still.

MATT: I think it might be worthwhile for me to read this policy – at least this section because it’s not that long. We’ll let the listeners decide.

“While your free time is generally not subject to any restriction by the company, the company urges all employees not to post information regarding the company, their jobs, or other employees which could lead to morale issues in the workplace or detrimentally affect the company’s business. This can be accomplished by always thinking before you post, being civil to others and their opinions, and not posting personal information about others unless you have received their permission.”

NASIR: It’s actually a very well-written policy, believe it or not, and it’s proven to actually withstand its criticism. By the way, Landry, I guess they operate Bubba Gump Shrimp restaurants which I think I’m only familiar with, they always seem to be on piers across the country – San Francisco, Seattle, I think they have one here in Galveston, Texas, too.

MATT: You’re familiar with it because of Forrest Gump, I would assume.

NASIR: Oh, well, yeah, obviously, but I’m familiar with it as a restaurant. What’s funny about this – oh, not funny, it’s just frustrating, actually – the NLRB general council, in my opinion, this policy is pretty well-worded and yet still they challenged it and it just goes to show you, like, it doesn’t even matter what the law is sometimes. You have to be ready to defend yourself when it comes to these employment matters, especially from the NLRB.

MATT: I agree with you too and I’m reading through the general council’s sort of thought process through this and I’m not surprised by the things that he highlighted. He had issues with the language referencing morale an...

Nasir and Matt discuss the settlement from a class action lawsuit involving Nike and Apple for an underperforming product.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: All right. Welcome to our podcast where we cover business in the news and our legal twist. My name is Nasir Pasha.

MATT: And I am Matt Staub.

NASIR: Right on cue. Did you see how I pointed to you? I was going to do the “three, two…” with the silent one and then for you to go.

MATT: Always helpful.

NASIR: No problem. That’s why I’m here – to make sure you’re on-time.

MATT: Who do we talk about today? Cecil, the Lion?

NASIR: No, poor Cecil.

MATT: Oh.

NASIR: They still can’t find the dentist. I guess the authorities went to his door and knocked on the door and then he didn’t come out. Like, literally that was the article I read. Like, they don’t know where he is. But, if you’re just going to his house and knock on the door, that’s probably not the best way to find him.

MATT: “We saw his car. We saw somebody walk in five minutes earlier but, when we knocked, nobody answered. So, you can only assume he’s not there.” Well, no Cecil, the Lion. But, we are going to talk about these FuelBands.

NASIR: Yeah, Nike Fuel.

MATT: Nike Fuel. Do you have one of these? Did you buy this?

NASIR: No, I didn’t buy that version. Nike Fuel’s actually been out for a while, but I did know people that used to have it and I think that my dad ended up buying one, eventually, but what’s goofy about it, is that he would just shake his arm – and I’ve seen other people do that – and basically it acts like you are moving or whatever so you could reach your goal pretty quickly that way.

MATT: Well, that’s probably why we’re talking about it and there was this class action settlement, and not only Nike but Apple was involved as well in this too. So, let me get to the class action part of it, I guess, the settlement terms. Basically, the agreement is, if you bought a FuelBand from January 2012 through June 2015, you are going to be entitled to either a $15.00 payment or a $25.00 gift card which reminds me, I never received any Red Bulls.

NASIR: Yeah, I haven’t either. Sometimes it takes time.

MATT: I haven’t moved. I’m still here. Red Bull, if you’re listening, I haven’t got my two Red Bulls that are probably going to be not tasting very good because it’s going to be so hot and bottom of the barrel Red Bull.

Anyways, there is this class action settlement and it kind of centers around this false advertising claim essentially saying that the things that it’s supposed to do – the FuelBands are supposed to do like, track steps and count calories – actually didn’t do that very accurately and that comes as no surprise based on what you just told me that you essentially move your wrist around and you’re burning tons of calories.

NASIR: Yeah, exactly. There’s plenty of these things now. I had the FitBit when it came out – well, actually, after it came out about a year or two ago – and then now I have a Samsung Gear Fit that goes really well with my phone. But, frankly, I mean, these are all pretty useless when it comes to accuracy. In fact, when I was buying mine, I remember to figure out what was the most accurate. People would take like five or six arm bands and wear them for the day and they’d all have different numbers. So, I guess, in theory, one of them could be accurate. But, most likely, they weren’t and I think the most important thing is consistency because, just the nature of measuring steps and distances, it’s not a complete science – you know, it’s not a ruler where you’re measuring something in that respect. But, the problem is that, when you’re selling something – in other words, okay, they settled, right? Nike and Apple, they say that they want to avoid litigation costs so let’s just get rid of these guys and settle this lawsuit and that’s well and good and that possibly may be the case but there could have been liability here because, think about it,

Nasir and Matt discuss the staffing agency that is being accused of negligent retention of an employee who embezzled funds with the company she was placed with.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: All right. Welcome to our podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist. My name is Nasir Pasha, here in Houston, Texas.

MATT: And I’m Matt Staub, in an undisclosed location, not in Houston, Texas.

NASIR: Undisclosed, in the middle of the desert of San Diego which is a desert, by the way.

MATT: You know, it has been pretty warm. Today was pretty warm. Rumors are there’s going to be some more rain which it rained a couple of weekends ago. It’s pretty rare but, yeah, it never really happens.

NASIR: By the way, I think we should start a tradition. Every Monday episode, let’s talk about the weather for five minutes before we start.

MATT: It always is you mention something and I’m just staring at the window as I’m talking and usually noticing what the weather is like as I’m recording. It’s just kind of how it happens.

NASIR: Well, my wife is there right now, enjoying the weather.

MATT: Oh, is she?

NASIR: Hello to her.

MATT: It’s a big city so I probably won’t see her.

NASIR: Oh, just keep an eye out. You may run into her.

MATT: I’ll keep an eye out.

NASIR: But everything’s going on in Texas.

MATT: We got a Texas story to start off here. There was a staffing agency and a company. The staffing agency placed a certain employee with this company and what the details of it are basically the staffing agency placed this – I believe it was an accountant, or at least I’m assuming such because it was dealing with funds – but the person that they placed with this company embezzled $15 million over eight years which doesn’t even really seem possible. I mean, if you’re generating a lot of income, then okay. But, still, for any business, that’s still a decent chunk of change. I mean, that’s what? A little under $2 million a year that this person was able to embezzle out of the company.

NASIR: But what’s weird is… I think this was a “she,” right?

MATT: Yeah, she.

NASIR: She was placed as a receptionist and then she was promoted to the head of accounting.

MATT: Not even Pam Halpert could get all the way to accounting. She went from receptionist to sales. Actually, not to get too far off-track but wasn’t it Kevin who came in for a receptionist position or something? Maybe even like janitor? And Michael’s like, “You know, I had a hunch so I hired him as an accountant.”

NASIR: Exactly, and I suppose the “head of accounting” – who knows exactly what that means of how big this company is but $15 million, obviously, how you lose that money and not notice it, I’m sure it was a large enough company for that to happen.

MATT: I would think so. And so, there was this big theft of $15 million essentially and what the company was saying was this was the staffing agency that’s at fault here because they should have conducted a criminal background check on this individual because, in this instance, she did have a prior theft record. I mean, I’m sure it probably didn’t amount to $15 million in over eight years theft issue but, still, nonetheless, there was a criminal background. And so, the company was saying the staffing agency failed to notify them of this individual’s criminal record. I guess, at some point, they discovered it down the road – and I’m not sure exactly what that was – but that was kind of the bulk of their argument and the first thing you’re going to think of was, “Well, what was in the agreement between the staffing agency and the company?” Because that’s probably going to give us a good idea of who’s ultimately going to be responsible for this.

NASIR: By the way, I have more information now. You know, Jacob, our law clerk helped us research this and he linked some old article from back in 2012 and I’m just like, “Why is this relevant?” and it’s because this is the exact same embezzlement. Apparently,

The guys close out the week but talking about the data breach on the second largest dating website and why we may not see the lawsuit you would expect.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: All right. Welcome to our podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist. My name is Nasir Pasha, the host and co-host of Legally Smart Sound Business dotcom – not dotcom, the podcast.

MATT: Host and co-host.

NASIR: And also joining me is Matthew Staub.

MATT: Exactly. Don’t even have to say it.

NASIR: And who are you?

MATT: You already said it.

NASIR: Well, I mean, I said someone’s joining me. No one knows who you are though.

MATT: Oh, Matt Staub. You said my name, too.

NASIR: Yeah, but what are you doing here?

MATT: I’m co-host, not host.

NASIR: Co-host of the podcast.

MATT: Exactly.

NASIR: By the way, how did you do research for today’s topic? Did you do it on your computer while you were next to your significant other?

MATT: No. Actually, I think you had sent me a link about this earlier in the week so I already knew about it. My wife had seen it because she browses Yahoo! top stores for some reason – the only person that goes to Yahoo!

NASIR: No, my wife does too. In fact, she already knew it as well. I’ll ask her to find out how she found out about it.

MATT: We were sitting there and she’s like, “Oh, there’s a site for cheaters.” It’s like, “Yeah, we talked about this on the podcast.”

NASIR: Don’t you listen and take notes.

MATT: We definitely talked about this.

NASIR: We barely mentioned it, yeah.

MATT: Yeah, because her point was like, “Why wouldn’t the spouse just create an account and see if their other spouse is on there?” I was like, “I don’t even know how it works, to be honest.” I mean, maybe that could work but I think it’s secret.

NASIR: Yeah, I assume it’s anonymous or something.

MATT: It has to be. But we’re talking about…

NASIR: Or is it?

MATT: Well, yeah, it has to be based on what we’re talking about now.

NASIR: Yeah.

MATT: So, Ashley Madison, I guess they classified as a dating site because it’s considered the second-largest dating site.

NASIR: No way? Second-largest?

MATT: Yeah.

NASIR: I’m so surprised, actually.

MATT: Behind match.com, 37 million users.

NASIR: Wow. No way. I honestly cannot believe that. That’s crazy.

MATT: With more than 37 million members worldwide, Ashley Madison claims to be the world’s second-largest dating website, only match.com has more or is bigger.

NASIR: Wow.

MATT: Yeah, pretty new site. The problem now is that the site was hacked and whoever has hacked it – or whomever has hacked it – is threatening to reveal the information of the users which is going to be a problem because now all these adulterers are going to be revealed to the general public. I guess it’s going to do something that’s going to match the information to find out names and addresses, et cetera. I mean, I don’t know the details of the actual threatened hack but this could pretty much be a game-changer. It probably is already a game-changer for this site. I bet it’s probably ruined now.

NASIR: Yeah. I mean, this has been heavily populized, no?

MATT: Publicized.

NASIR: Publicized. Populized… Publicized in the media to the extent that pretty much even people that didn’t know about the site now know about the site but know it as a place that, if you want to cheat on your spouse, your information is not necessarily private. The most interesting part about this and I think where we’re kind of covering this is that Ashley Madison apparently told its customers that, okay, if you pay $19.00 then they’re going to completely erase your profile information. The implication of that is that, okay, well, if I pay this extra amount then that means that pretty much your information is protected and it’s pretty much deleted. I can foresee this where – I don’t know – maybe your subpoenaed or Ashley Madison’s subpoenas for its records to some kind of legal issue, legal dispute,

Nasir and Matt discuss the EEOC decision that may prohibit gender discrimination before Congress passes its own law.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: All right. Welcome to our podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist. My name is Nasir Pasha.

MATT: And I’m Matt Staub.

NASIR: What’s going on, Matt?

MATT: Uh, doing pretty well. We’re in the weird phase of San Diego weather where it’s either gloomy or humid or both so it’s unenjoyable… I mean, it’s probably way worse for you.

NASIR: I know it rained last week and the only reason I knew it rained is because I got all these pictures as if it was some kind of miracle in San Diego which it practically was, I suppose.

MATT: I mean, the rain, that’s pretty rare bit there was lightning and thunder which is extremely rare for San Diego.

NASIR: Pretty commonplace here in Houston except I don’t think we’ve had rain in the last thirty days which is… I don’t know if it’s unusual for the time but unusual in general.

MATT: Well, I’d still probably take this weather over yours.

NASIR: Yeah, I think so. I think that’s established as far as weather – Houston versus San Diego. That’s a good court case.

MATT: Houston versus San Diego. They’re suing over…

NASIR: Better weather.

MATT: All right. Enough of lame legal jokes. We’ve got a pretty interesting topic.

NASIR: No, let’s talk about the weather some more, that’s usually a good topic.

MATT: Yeah, also a good podcast subject. So, this is a topic that I think is obviously going to get a lot more mention here in the upcoming probably years. Actually, I could see this even being… maybe not this specifically or at least a little bit – this could be a big issue even in like the presidential election coming up – possibly. I don’t know. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t.

NASIR: Absolutely, I think so.

MATT: We’re going to talk about it I guess the employee-employer context. We’re dealing with employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. What that community and other advocates are trying to do is lift this federal prohibition on employment discrimination against the – like I said – based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But there was a recent EEOC – Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – decision that possibly could have already made this a non-issue – or at least some people are saying. Basically it’s saying that this is already illegal on the grounds of Title 7. What this ruling was I think there was a three to two I believe panel decision. It kind of all centers around “the sex” in Title 7. And so, what does that really mean? I think they had mentioned it’s included transgender in the past but that’s kind of what we’re getting to and it’s not interchangeable with sex and gender necessarily but there was a decision that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sex and the panel ruled that the job discrimination against gays violate this against this Title 7 under the Civil Rights Act. I don’t think that made any sense.

NASIR: We’ll get it out by automatic translator here.

I think, first, to really understand the EEOC’s reasoning, I think you have to kind of take a look at what Title 7 was and Title 7 is a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and basically it specifically provides that employers cannot discriminate based upon gender but also religion, color, race, national origin. But what’s interesting is that there’s been previous rulings held that even the association thereof of an employee – for example, if the employee is associated with a person of a certain race or color or religion, then you can’t discriminate on that basis. The EEOC takes that same kind of logic and they say, “Well, if the Title 7 does that, then it also applies to gender as well.” So, if you’re associating yourself through your spouse or your partner as a same-sex partner or spouse, then discriminating based upon that same reason is also prohibited.

Nasir and Matt talk about the lawsuitalleging Zillow of copyright infringement even though it has a licensing agreement to use certain photographs.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: All right. Welcome to our podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist. My name is Nasir Pasha.

MATT: And I’m Matt Staub.

NASIR: And we are here to tell you about business and the law.

MATT: And, for some reason, it got a lot hotter where I’m recording from the last episode to this one, and I don’t know what exactly happened but I don’t really like it.

NASIR: I think it’s the excitement in the air. Actually, I think everyone’s feeling it right now. I mean, I think, as soon as people started playing this, people are feeling the heat – just the excitement of this episode.

MATT: It must be.

NASIR: I’m pretty sure.

MATT: We’ve definitely talked about Zillow before – I had to have think, right?

NASIR: Yes, it’s “wolliz” backwards.

MATT: “Willoz” – I’m very aware of Zillow but I was not aware of Zillow Digs which I guess is their home improvement site.

NASIR: I think it’s new.

MATT: It has to be – well, I’d have guessed it’d have to be. I’ve never heard of it at all.

NASIR: Yeah, I’m pretty sure, yeah.

MATT: Well, in the context of what we’re going to discuss, it would make sense if it was new, if they’re just now bringing issue of it.

NASIR: Yeah.

MATT: So, what is that issue? Well, I’ll tell you. It’s going to be a copyright infringement issue. Let me give a little backstory on this – not a personal backstory but a backstory for this thing. There’s a company called VHT?

NASIR: Yeah, I’m sure it stands for something but that’s what the name says.

MATT: Yeah. So, VHT and then, of course, Zillow. So, VHT is in the business of essentially having a huge database of real estate photos. I think more than 4 million real estate photos – kind of everything – home exteriors and interiors, a whole bunch of different photos. But they have a licensing agreement with Zillow which allows Zillow to use the photos that VHT has on their site – on the regular Zillow site – they’re allowed to use the photos for the purposes of marketing the properties for sale which makes sense because, I mean, I guess Zillow is a way to find information on just finding information on a property but also the ideas to see which houses are for sale and learn more about them – kind of an open MLS to some degree for non-real estate people. So, Zillow Digs is the home improvement site that they have which VHT was aware of but they’re saying that, you know, this new thing was supposed to be for home improvement. It’s more for marketing, things like that. VHT was concerned because they were saying, “Well, this isn’t really for our purposes that we agreed to of marketing the properties for sale. This is the purpose of selling advertising or for design elements that you’re using our photographs,” and it really hasn’t been too many. I think they only said a little over 300 of their photographs have been used so it’s not like we’re talking about a lot but it gets into the question of, because there is this licensing agreement, and I guess we would need to know who it was between, if it was between VHT and Zillow and if Zillow is a parent company that wholly owns this other Zillow Digs or how exactly it’s set up. We’ll assume for this purpose that the agreement covers it – the licensing agreement. But the scope of the license that’s granted is really what’s an issue here. This is going to come up for any time that there are photos that are going to be licensed out because, if it’s not under the scope of the license, then we’re going to run into infringement issues.

NASIR: So, VHT, basically… I’m trying to think of other equivalents to this in like the music industry or what-have-you but basically, if you’re a real estate agent, you can call VHT and I’m not surprised if people have already heard this already but they’ll send a “VHT professional photographer” o...

Nasir and Matt discuss when businesses can display a customer's social security number and what to do if your social security number is shown on a letter or credit card receipt.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: All right. Welcome to our business podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist to those business news items. My name is Nasir Pasha.

MATT: And I’m Matt Staub.

NASIR: And welcome to the best episode ever of Legally Sound Smart Business. Matt and I were just discussing prior that this is probably going to be our best so congratulations everyone, you’ve made it.

MATT: That’s also what we discuss before every episode though.

NASIR: That is true. I’m hoping this time we’ll make it. Or is every episode better than the next? So, the latest episode is always the best episode, is that what’s been going on?

MATT: It’s possible. I’d have to go back and listen.

NASIR: Okay. Let’s just do that now.

MATT: I’ll pause.

NASIR: And we’re back! So, what did we decide?

MATT: It was true.

NASIR: It was true, yeah. So, this one has to be the best one. Hopefully it’s not as good as the last one then.

MATT: Even the clip show episodes were somehow better than the previous versions of that.

NASIR: The previous ones? I think that makes sense. That really makes sense, yeah.

MATT: So, we’re going a talk about a couple of things here – one of which is social security numbers. I guess we’ve talked long enough that hopefully people aren’t going to turn off the rest of the episode, I guess. If we’re gotten them this far… well, I guess I’ll probably end up putting social security in the title so maybe that will turn people off as well but…

NASIR: Well, credit cards, too. We’ll talk about basically private information that you’re holding of your customers.

MATT: Well, I mean, there’s a couple of things. There’s getting something in the mail, getting a letter in the mail and, you know, what are the guidelines of when – if at all – can be your social security number on there? And then, two, using a credit card and you get the receipt back. I bet most people probably don’t even look for this every time that it comes up but, you know, we’ll discuss the laws in place with that as well. I guess we’ll start with the getting something in the mail and I guess this came up recently because the California EDD – Employment Development Department – was sending out letters in the mail and I guess people’s social security numbers were listed on there which, I’m trying to think, I mean, I deal with a lot of IRS stuff. I know there’s been social security numbers on there in the past which is fine if it falls under the exception that they’re allowed to put on that is, well, this is for California but California prohibits the printing of an individual’s social security number on any materials that are mailed out to the individual unless state or federal law requires a social security number to be on the document to be mailed. EDD’s argument here was it was a necessity for the social security number to be on there so we can ensure that the information is correct for the person it was sent to.

NASIR: And this California law is actually in many other states. I don’t know how many but it’s not atypical. But this whole EDD’s position that it’s somehow necessary, even if it is necessary now, why is it necessary? You know, there are ways to protect your identity and so forth. In fact, I was just reading this basically interview of this guy – and I think he was in Russia or maybe some Eastern European country – where his job was to basically make phone calls to these credit card companies posing as these victims of identity theft because the people that actually stole their credit card had needed further verification so his job was to basically take on the identity and pretend that they’re that individual. Of course, they do that by finding the social security number, other information, pulling the credit report somehow, and so, I mean,

Nasir and Matt discuss the recently firing of a popular Reddit employee that causedan uproar and questioned the status of Reddit's unpaid volunteers.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: All right. Welcome to our podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist to that news. My name’s Nasir Pasha.

MATT: And I’m Matt Staub.

I thought, for this episode, I would let you ask me anything.

NASIR: Oh, okay, AMA for Matthew Staub.

MATT: Yeah, AMA.

NASIR: When was your first pizza job? Oh, wait, we’ve heard that story fifty times.

MATT: Those of you not familiar with reddit, the reason I said the Ask Me Anything is there was some news – another thing people are going crazy about – last week…

NASIR: End of last week so, when this episode comes out, two weeks ago, I suppose.

MATT: Yeah. Basically, one of the employees who I believe was in-charge of the Ask Me Anything sub-reddit which is a forum – people go on there and they ask, “Ask me anything,” and then the people on reddit can ask them questions and they’ll answer them, that’s what that is.

NASIR: It’s one of the most popular subreddits. You know, some people may not be aware what reddit is so, just really quick, first, if you haven’t gone there, go ahead and go there. It’s reddit.com – pretty popular site, really interesting, you can kind of get lost into the different subreddits because they basically have a different subreddit for every topic that you can think of. And so, one of the most popular ones is a subreddit called IAMA and you’ll have many celebrities or different people that have certain specialties or in certain industries that will go on there for a couple of hours and basically answer a bunch of questions that you would ask. Very fascinating, actually.

MATT: Yeah, so the person that was responsible for managing the Ask Me Anything, they recently got fired and they thought it was possibly over this AMA that went awry with Jesse Jackson which I haven’t really read into that and saw what was so bad but that’s what people believe was the case of the termination but Ellen Pao, CEO of reddit and other say, “No, that’s definitely not the case,” and it kind of sparked not only a backlash with the people that visited reddit but the people that are managing a lot of these bigger subreddits did a thing where they made them go dark, causing even more of an outcry I guess from all the people involved.

NASIR: Yeah. Basically, it was like a period of nine hours where all these pretty popular reddits went dark. I missed it because, when I went on, it was like everyone was talking about how it went dark so I wasn’t really affected. But, apparently, what they mean is they make the subreddit private so that, unless you are permitted through the moderator, you can’t access it. The number of subreddits that actually went dark was such that it basically ended up being mostly the user population that couldn’t access the site.

MATT: Yeah, it’s obviously not good for reddit and, while it was only temporary, I mean, it was much bigger news after the fact than during, I think, from the broader population. But, for the people that are really into reddit, then they were probably outraged during that time. So, this person was an employee, I believe.

NASIR: Yeah.

MATT: But it brings up the question – you know, I’m sure there’s going to be claims, some sort of wrongful termination, et cetera – but it brings up the idea of these other people that are moderating or these people that are moderating all these different subreddits – like you said, there’s probably thousands of them, right? At least hundreds.

NASIR: Definitely hundreds. I would definitely say thousands, if not tens of thousands.

MATT: Yeah. These people are volunteers – because you need moderators or else things get out of hand – maybe not for the obscure ones but for the ones that enough people go to, they have these people volunteering to essentially be the administrator of these different subreddits an...

Nasir and Matt discuss howmany companies maintain privacy policies which allow for the sale of personal data.

Full Podcast Transcript

NASIR: All right. Welcome to Legally Sound Smart Business. This is our podcast where we cover business in the news and add our legal twist. My name is Nasir Pasha.

MATT: And I’m Matt Staub.

NASIR: And thank you for joining us once again for a series of information and events which you can take in your consideration.

MATT: A series of letters that form into words which form into sentences and who knows what will happen from there…

NASIR: Which eventually forms a podcast episode.

MATT: Yeah, hopefully. We’ll see.

NASIR: At least that’s the objective.

MATT: If we have our personal data after this episode then we’ll have a podcast episode.

NASIR: Well, this personal data thing is crazy. I know you’re just leading into your transition but we’re talking about this because it’s somewhat dated. Everyone remembers the whole RadioShack bankruptcy and then basically sold everything from A to Z. We covered a little bit about it but what was not as publicized is what happened to the actual private data that they’ve collected for over 100 million customers, including everything from social security numbers to credit card numbers to everything in-between.

MATT: Well, luckily, for most people, they hadn’t shopped at RadioShack for a very long time so maybe there’s no personal data on file.

NASIR: Most of the people are probably dead by now of those 100 million customers.

MATT: It’s been at least ten years since I’ve been inside – probably fifteen years since I went to a RadioShack.

NASIR: You know those times where you just need a cable or something like that? I was giving a presentation in the middle of nowhere – when I say middle of nowhere, I didn’t know where I was – and I needed a cable so I had someone go in looking around and they ended up going to RadioShack and they brought in the wrong cable and they went back two or three times and they ended up not having the cable, of course, that I needed. I was like, “What’s the point of this store? I don’t get it.”

MATT: Well, at least it wasn’t your data. You had somebody else pay for it or buy it.

NASIR: True.

MATT: There was a bankruptcy case with RadioShack but it’s not just that. I mean, any sort of merger acquisition, asset sale, any sort of other transaction – let me get the data on this – the 100 biggest sites in the US, 85 of them included language in their privacy policy saying they could transfer user data if one of those triggering things happened – merger acquisition, asset sale, et cetera.

NASIR: And that’s 85 out of… you said 100?

MATT: Yeah.

NASIR: You know, what’s interesting about these privacy policies that are pretty much required – you know, California is one of the first and I think we’ve talked about it in the past, it’s one of the first states to actually require privacy policies – you can pretty much put whatever you want. A lot of times, like Matt said, they’ll say, “Okay, we won’t sell your data unless we are acquired,” or something like that – that’s best case scenario. But, a lot of times, you can just say that, “Yeah, we’re going to use your data and we’re going to use it for marketing purposes,” or they word it in such a way that may not be as egregious but, at the end of the day, allows them to do what they want.

MATT: Yeah, and similar to terms of service – probably even less so than terms of service – people don’t read the privacy policy on websites. I mean, typically, it’s either at the bottom of the page in the small link or you have to go to the site map and find it that way. It’s not something people openly go to – I mean, other than an attorney or someone really interested in tech-related stuff. I can’t see many other people going and checking that out.

NASIR: Which I think is not unreasonable because, you know, when you surf and enter in forms and so forth,