Google Drive launched a couple days ago and some new publications are already writing about possible data ownership issues. It’s a common concern whenever a new service launches or website terms and conditions change. Darren Smith pointed me to an article by C|Net titled “Who owns your files on Google Drive?” which had a somewhat confused focus and an unnecessarily alarming conclusion represented by this tagline:

Dropbox and Microsoft's SkyDrive allow you to retain your copyright and IP rights to the work you upload to the service, but Google Drive takes everything you own.

I took a look at Dropbox’s, Microsoft’s and Google’s terms and conditions to test this conclusion.

Dropbox’s terms and conditions

The C|Net post focused on this clause in the Dropbox terms which are only part of the story when it comes to Dropbox’s terms:

By using our Services you provide us with information, files, and folders that you submit to Dropbox (together, “your stuff”). You retain full ownership to your stuff. We don’t claim any ownership to any of it. These Terms do not grant us any rights to your stuff or intellectual property except for the limited rights that are needed to run the Services, as explained below.

This clause clearly states that Dropbox doesn’t claim ownership of your data but the more important set of provisions are those dealing with the license Dropbox takes from its users when it comes to accessing and making use of the data you upload to Dropbox. Bear in mind that all of these services will have a license of some sort. A license is a set of permissions you, as the user, give to the provider and that enables the provider to receive, manipulate and otherwise handle your data. It’s an essential component and nothing to be alarmed by in itself (at least not if you are comfortable with the basic idea of a provider having access to your data as part of your use of the particular service).

Dropbox’s license provisions are pretty vague. Here are the key clauses:

We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example, hosting your files, or sharing them at your direction. This includes product features visible to you, for example, image thumbnails or document previews. It also includes design choices we make to technically administer our Services, for example, how we redundantly backup data to keep it safe. You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services. This permission also extends to trusted third parties we work with to provide the Services, for example Amazon, which provides our storage space (again, only to provide the Services).

To be clear, aside from the rare exceptions we identify in our Privacy Policy, no matter how the Services change, we won’t share your content with others, including law enforcement, for any purpose unless you direct us to. How we collect and use your information generally is also explained in our Privacy Policy.

…

Sharing Your Stuff

The Services provide features that allow you to share your stuff with others or to make it public. There are many things that users may do with that stuff (for example, copy it, modify it, re-share it). Please consider carefully what you choose to share or make public. Dropbox has no responsibility for that activity.

The basic idea is clear, though. Dropbox requires your permission to run its service and you agree to give it whatever permissions it requires to do that. The problem with this simplistic approach is that it is too simplistic and vague. As a user you don’t really know what the license’s parameters are beyond whatever is not required to operate the service.

Microsoft Services Agreement

These terms and conditions are not limited to SkyDrive but apply to a range of Microsoft services:

It's a contract that governs your use of any Windows Live, Bing, MSN, Microsoft Office Live, or Office.com services or software, or other Microsoft services or software that directly display or link to this agreement (the "service"). By using or accessing the service, you confirm that you agree to these terms. If you don't agree, don't use the service. Thanks.

This is significant because, unlike with Dropbox where your license relates to a fairly specific service, the license you grant to Microsoft encompasses a variety of services which are increasingly interconnected. This is very similar to Google’s terms (below). These terms and conditions are more specific than Dropbox’s licensing provisions and also contain a statement that Microsoft doesn’t claim ownership of users’ data:

5. Your content

Except for material that we license to you, we don't claim ownership of the content you provide on the service. Your content remains your content. We also don't control, verify, or endorse the content that you and others make available on the service.

You control who may access your content. If you share content in public areas of the service or in shared areas available to others you've chosen, then you agree that anyone you've shared content with may use that content. When you give others access to your content on the service, you grant them free, nonexclusive permission to use, reproduce, distribute, display, transmit, and communicate to the public the content solely in connection with the service and other products and services made available by Microsoft. If you don't want others to have those rights, don't use the service to share your content.

You understand that Microsoft may need, and you hereby grant Microsoft the right, to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, distribute, and display content posted on the service solely to the extent necessary to provide the service.

Please respect the rights of artists, inventors, and creators. Content may be protected by copyright. People appearing in content may have a right to control the use of their image. If you share content on the service in a way that infringes others' copyrights, other intellectual property rights, or privacy rights, you're breaching this contract. You represent and warrant that you have all the rights necessary for you to grant the rights in this section and the use of the content doesn't violate any law. We won't pay you for your content. We may refuse to publish your content for any or no reason. We may remove your content from the service at any time if you breach this contract or if we cancel or suspend the service.

You're responsible for backing up the data that you store on the service. If your service is suspended or canceled, we may permanently delete your data from our servers. We have no obligation to return data to you after the service is suspended or canceled. If data is stored with an expiration date, we may also delete the data as of that date. Data that is deleted may be irretrievable.

A couple things emerge from these terms and conditions. Firstly, when you share your data with other people, you give them a limited license to use your data “solely in connection with the service and other products and services made by Microsoft”. Similarly, the license users grant to Microsoft in respect of their data is limited to permissions required “solely to the extent necessary to provide the service”.

Google’s terms and conditions

Google Drive is governed by Google’s Terms and the license provisions are fairly similar to Dropbox’s and SkyDrive’s, at least when it comes to the basic approach. As with the other two services, Google doesn’t claim ownership of your data. Here are the license provisions:

Your Content in our Services

Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.

You can find more information about how Google uses and stores content in the privacy policy or additional terms for particular Services. If you submit feedback or suggestions about our Services, we may use your feedback or suggestions without obligation to you.

The license Google users grant to Google is notionally for the “limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones” but it is somewhat open ended in that Google could develop new services or modify existing ones that require your data to be used in ways you couldn’t have anticipated when signing up. This is fairly similar to Microsoft’s Services Agreement which also uses one license for all its services.

What does this all mean?

The C|Net article contains this rather alarming set of statements:

The last sentence makes all the difference. While these rights are limited to essentially making Google Drive better and to develop new services run by Google, the scope is not defined and could extend far further than one would expect.

Simply put: there's no definitive boundary that keeps Google from using what it likes from what you upload to its service.

The chances are Google's terms will never be an issue -- and it is likely over-zealous lawyers making sure Google doesn't somehow get screwed in the long run by a lawsuit -- but it may be enough to push away a great number of entrepreneurs and creative workers who rely on holding on to the rights to their own work.

The fact is, according to its terms, Google may own any code or product you ultimately upload to its new Google Drive service, whether you realise it or not.

These statements, particularly the last one, are factually incorrect and misleading. They are also not uncommon when journalists attempt to navigate terms and conditions without the time or inclination to read them carefully. Google doesn’t claim ownership of its users’ data. Its license is fairly broad and that is understandable given the wide range of services it offers. At the same time, there is scope for the already broad license to be applied in ways users may not have considered. The specific permissions users grant to Google are substantially the same as those users grant to Microsoft (Google is more specific and lists more individual permissions but they are not fundamentally different). 

The big difference here is between Dropbox’s terms, on one hand, and Google’s and Microsoft’s on the other hand. Dropbox offers a fairly specific set of services so users have more certainty as to what they are licensing Dropbox to do with their data. Google and Microsoft offer a range of interconnected services governed by a single legal framework and the potential scope for their licenses is far broader when you consider that their users may be using a variety of Google and Microsoft services with different functionality.

I’ve seen license provisions which are far more onerous in the past. The big culprit back in 2007 was Facebook with this gem:

When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.

This license was as close to an assumption of ownership as Facebook has ever come. It was so close to assuming ownership that the difference between ownership and licensing user content was a matter of semantics. The controversies over the Facebook terms did a lot to create more awareness of users’ expectations and what it means to be a better licensor. The current generation of terms and conditions reflect that, for the most part (there are still some shockers). These modern licenses are clearer, limited in varying degrees but are often necessarily broad to enable these services to function effectively. I agree with the one statement in the C|Net article, though –

It always pays to read the fine print.

Current terms (published on 29 March 2011)

Much of the focus on Pinterest's new terms of service (which go into effect on 6 April) is on the original content license users grant to Pinterest which includes the right to "sell" "Member Content". The two key clauses here are the definition of "Member Content" and the original license clause which state the following (I highlighted the problematic terms in bold):

"Member Content" means all Content that a Member posts, uploads, publishes, submits or transmits to be made available through the Site, Application or Services.

and

We may, in our sole discretion, permit Members to post, upload, publish, submit or transmit Member Content. By making available any Member Content through the Site, Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense, to use, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, stream, broadcast, access, view, and otherwise exploit such Member Content only on, through or by means of the Site, Application or Services. Cold Brew Labs does not claim any ownership rights in any such Member Content and nothing in these Terms will be deemed to restrict any rights that you may have to use and exploit any such Member Content.

The effect of these provisions was to enable Pinterest to commercially exploit Member Content published on the site on the basis that users grant Pinterest. This license is granted automatically and the way Pinterest attempts to ensure that users are legally authorised to grant this license is through this acknowledgement or warranty:

You acknowledge and agree that you are solely responsible for all Member Content that you make available through the Site, Application and Services. Accordingly, you represent and warrant that: (i) you either are the sole and exclusive owner of all Member Content that you make available through the Site, Application and Services or you have all rights, licenses, consents and releases that are necessary to grant to Cold Brew Labs the rights in such Member Content, as contemplated under these Terms; and (ii) neither the Member Content nor your posting, uploading, publication, submission or transmittal of the Member Content or Cold Brew Labs’ use of the Member Content (or any portion thereof) on, through or by means of the Site, Application and the Services will infringe, misappropriate or violate a third party’s patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, moral rights or other proprietary or intellectual property rights, or rights of publicity or privacy, or result in the violation of any applicable law or regulation.

This sort of warranty is a common mechanism in website terms and short of having each user prove they are entitled to post each item to the service (totally impractical), this is how site providers tend to protect themselves from a user submissions perspective.

One of the significant challenges in these terms is that users are potentially liable for substantial damages simply by using the service. This is as a result of the liability clauses in the terms. I won't go into this in detail here as I have already done so in my post titled "Pinterest's hidden threat to its users" which I recommend you read before continuing with this post.

The new terms (6 April 2012)

The new terms deal with content a little differently. Firstly, the definition will change to "User Content". This isn't as well defined as "Member Content" is in the current terms. It is defined or framed as follows (I highlighted the relevant sections):

Your content. Pinterest allows you to pin and post content on the Service, including photos, comments, and other materials. Anything that you pin, post, display, or otherwise make available on our Service, including all Intellectual Property Rights (defined below) in such content, is referred to as “User Content.” You retain all of your rights in all of the User Content you post to our Service.

Framing "User Content" this way does two things. It streamlines the definition of User Content and it explicitly states that users retain the rights they have in the content they post. This means that Pinterest has no ownership claim over your stuff which you post to the site or, implicitly, anyone else's. This also addresses a very common misperception we see in media coverage of site terms of use: Pinterest doesn't claim to own your content. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing site terms where a provider claims ownership of user content. The problem lies more in how broad the license is that users grant these service providers. The license users grant Pinterest is the following (I've highlighted some interesting provisions):

• How Pinterest and other users can use your content. Subject to any applicable account settings you select, you grant us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, display, reproduce, re-pin, modify (e.g., re-format), re-arrange, and distribute your User Content on Pinterest for the purposes of operating and providing the Service(s) to you and to our other Users. Nothing in these Terms shall restrict Pinterest’s rights under separate licenses to User Content. Please remember that the Pinterest Service is a public platform, and that other Users may search for, see, use, and/or re-pin any User Content that you make publicly available through the Service.
• How long we keep your content: Following termination or deactivation of your account, or if you remove any User Content from your account or your boards, Pinterest may retain your User Content for a commercially reasonable period of time for backup, archival, or audit purposes. Furthermore, Pinterest and other Users may retain and continue to display, reproduce, re-pin, modify, re-arrange, and distribute any of your User Content that other Users have re-pinned to their own boards or which you have posted to public or semi-public areas of the Service.

What is noticeable is that the new terms omit the reference to "sell" and the new license is not irrevocable or perpetual. It is still royalty-free and "sublicenseable" so Pinterest is not liable for any royalties payable for publishing User Content and can sub-license the content to another party. This latter requirement may be intended more to enable the service to function more than a desire to move content around. Any other party that republishes the content as part of the overall service would need the right to do so. This may include Pinterest's hosting provider, 3rd party services and so on.

A related term in the new terms is "Pinterest Content" which is framed as follows:

Pinterest Content. Except for User Content, the Service itself, all content and other subject matter included on or within the Service, and all Intellectual Property Rights in or related to the Service or any such content or other subject matter (“Pinterest Content”) are the property of Pinterest and its licensors. Except as expressly provided in these Terms, you agree not to use, modify, reproduce, distribute, sell, license, or otherwise exploit the Pinterest Content without our permission.

A big change in the new terms is the introduction of an Acceptable Use Policy which more fully addresses how users can make use of the service. Two of the prohibitions include posting any User Content that –

infringes any third party’s Intellectual Property Rights, privacy rights, publicity rights, or other personal or proprietary rights

and

contains any information or content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships

The new terms define "Intellectual Property Rights" as follows:

Definition of Intellectual Property Rights. When we refer to “Intellectual Property Rights” in these Terms, we mean all patent rights; copyright rights; moral rights; rights of publicity; trademark, trade dress and service mark rights (and associated goodwill); trade secret rights; and all other intellectual property and proprietary rights as may now exist or hereafter come into existence, and all applications for any of these rights and registrations, renewals and extensions of any of these rights, in each case under the laws of any state, country, territory or other jurisdiction.

The new terms make it pretty clear that users are only to publish content they have the rights to publish, whether this be under a license granted by the content creator (most Creative Commons licensed content, for example, would probably be fine) or where there are copyright infringement exceptions (I wrote about this in my first post titled "Is Pinterest a den of copyright thieves?"). The terms also include fairly extensive provisions intended for content owners and which detail Pinterest's interest in protecting their rights, preventing efforts to circumvent the so-called "no pin" tag content owners can use to block efforts to pin their content as well as to report any copyright infringement.

What Pinterest hasn't changed much are its liability protection clauses. As with the current terms, the new terms include an indemnity clause which states the following:

You agree to indemnify and hold harmless Pinterest and its officers, directors, employees and agents, from and against any claims, suits, proceedings, disputes, demands, liabilities, damages, losses, costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees (including costs of defense of claims, suits or proceedings brought by third parties), arising out of or in any way related to (i) your access to or use of the Services or Pinterest Content, (ii) your User Content, or (iii) your breach of any of these Terms.

The terms also include a liability limitation clause which reminds users that "THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICES, PINTEREST CONTENT, AND USER CONTENT REMAINS WITH YOU AND YOU USE THE SERVICES AT YOUR OWN RISK" (among other things).

Actually there is one significant change from the old indemnity clause to the new one. The old (or current) clause requires users to "defend" Pinterest. That change relieves users of the potential responsibility for filing court papers in Pinterest's defence should it be sued. What the new indemnity clause doesn't do is relieve users of the potential responsibility for any damages Pinterest may be ordered to pay, any costs it may incur or other penalties which flow from claims lodged against Pinterest in respect of –

• "your access to or use of the Services or Pinterest Content";
• "your User Content"; or
• "your breach of any of these Terms".

There is one important omission in the indemnity. The indemnity doesn't require your "use of the Services or Pinterest Content" to be unlawful or to infringe a 3rd party's rights, necessarily. It potentially includes a situation where your use of the "Services or Pinterest Content" is legitimate and Pinterest's isn't. This could be possible if your use is regarded as a "fair use" (this has a specific legal context, see below) and Pinterest's may not be because it's a commercial service, for example.

What does this all mean for you?

The bottom line is that you should only pin stuff to Pinterest which you are licensed to pin or which you can pin under a copyright exception like "fair use" as applied in the State of California (these terms are governed by the "internal substantive laws of the State of California"). Any other publication or use of the service and content published on Pinterest could be a violation of someone Intellectual Property Rights and a breach of the terms of service. If Pinterest is sued for that and you are the unlucky user who did the infringing, you could be on the hook. This could be regardless of whether you acted lawfully when you used Pinterest.

In other words, heed the liability limitation clause's admonition:

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICES, PINTEREST CONTENT, AND USER CONTENT REMAINS WITH YOU AND YOU USE THE SERVICES AT YOUR OWN RISK.

ITWeb contacted me and asked me for comment on a new technology called WiST which stands for "Wireless Intelligent Sensing Technology" (look out for the article tomorrow). On the face of it, this is an exciting technology. It is an alternative to RFID and promises an effective way to track assets and, more problematically, people:

Recent developments in miniaturized and low power integrated-circuit technology has allowed for the development of miniature and intelligent WiST™ sensors. Sensors provide a unique ID, sense movement, temperature, light, tilt, pressure and many more attributes. WiST sensors can also act as active RFID or NFC devices. This greatly enhances the use of WiST™ in a large variety of applications that vary from personal to business use.

Similarly GSM and microprocessor technology have become smaller, more power efficient and cost effective. The WiST™ sensor data transmits to predefined databases on the internet. The WiST™ applications then alert users and route data to business applications, control rooms, cell phones, and mobile devices according to predefined rules.

While the asset management applications are relatively benign (except where combined with people), the possible applications for people-based tracking are worrying, to the say the least. One of the possible applications mentioned on the WiST site is for "social networking identification":

Why send countless hours updating your social networking profile while you can stay in touch and build new social networks with the help of a WiST™ sensor armband.

WiST™ armbands contain tamper proof sensors with on-board memory that enables the user to store personal information such as name, photograph emergency contact details, medical details and social network details. The system is programmable to allow for flexible distribution protocols.

As the user visits WiST™ enabled venues such as clubs, bars, restaurants etc. WiST™ cameras will identify the users and take photographs and/or videos of them in their social environment. The users can follow a few simple steps to post the material of their choice to their profiles.

This technology becomes problematic if it is used in such a way that consumers are unaware that it is being used or are not adequately informed about what the technology does. Tagging people in real-time and associating that with identities and location is a privacy minefield and WiST must navigate this very carefully. While the idea of enabling real-time tracking at events is an appealing one from an organiser's perspective, people attending these events need to be clearly informed when or how –

• the device or object they are wearing or carrying is such a tag;
• they are being tracked and to what extent;
• they can opt-out (they should be given a choice to opt-in in the first place);
• they can access data about them held by whoever is holding or accessing that data as well as how they can control what is done with that data.

Sometimes consent isn't enough. When children are involved the technology becomes incredibly problematic because of the limitations on collecting and processing children's personal data (on the other hand, when the appropriate consents are given and safeguards put in place, this could be an invaluable technology to help track and protect children in trouble).

When it comes to the data collected, WiST must make sure that this data is secure and only disclosed to people who are required to have access to it and to parties the people being tracked have agreed may have access to the data. Using the data (including photos) for advertising must also be handled carefully. Ideally a release should be obtained and the party seeking to make use of those photos in the context of promotional competitions, for example, must comply with the Consumer Protection Act. Of course, when the Protection of Personal Information Bill is passed into law it will bring a host of very specific compliance requirements that will affect just about every aspect of WiST's application to personal data.

This is a pretty complex set of issues which my comments only begin to unpack and this technology is not to be used to track people without making sure there is an adequate personal data protection mechanism in place to protect people's privacy and explain the implications of the tags to them. The potential for abuse by reckless or uninformed providers is tremendous.

Consider this hypothetical scenario as an indication of the possible threats to consumers' privacy:
A group of friends go to a concert and are given a bracelet containing a WiST tag. The tag tracks the friends' movements in and out of the venue and trigger cameras at various locations in the venue. If the friends registered for the event in advance and associated their registration information with their Twitter and Facebook profiles, the photos are automatically uploaded (can your colleagues see these photos, do you know whether the photos are published publicly on Facebook or subject to your preferred privacy settings) and may even contain location data so someone downloading those photos can see where they were taken almost in real-time. As the friends visit concession stands their purchasing preferences are tracked and included in aggregated personal profiles, possibly to be made available to marketers later for more targeted marketing (not necessarily a bad thing but not everyone wants their preferences logged).

After the event the friends go their separate ways and, on the way home or to the next party, their tags track them using GPS functionality and transmit data about places they frequent, where they live and what their schedules are. If they happen to like the bracelet as a fashion item, they may wear the tags in the days that follow, adding a range of location-based information to their aggregated profiles and if they interact with other WiST enabled services, more specific transactional data may be thrown into the mix.

Where this becomes more problematic is if the friends were unaware that the bracelet was capable of tracking them and to what extent. If they didn't consent to being tracked by the WiST tag (and this consent must be well informed, given the possible applications of this technology), they may not be aware of an option to opt-out meaningfully aside from removing and destroying the bracelet and the tag it contains (throwing it away at home isn't really an option, it gives fraudsters with access to the data your home location and where your rubbish goes and a source for more of your data for possible identity theft efforts).

Other questions include who collects the data, who has access to it and who controls it? Can users obtain details of what personal information about them is being held under the Promotion of Access to Information Act? Is the data held in a central location or do event organisers and other WiST customers have their own databases? Are the holders of this data known to or discoverable by tagged consumers? Is the data securely held?

Something to bear in mind is that most of us carry a tag of a sorts already in the form of our mobile phones but we notionally have the option of disabling services on our phones that may track our locations, for example, or even turning the phones off altogether. Its not clear than consumers will be able to do this with WiST enabled devices or items.

WiST is a promising technology and could be legitimately and beneficially used in a variety of contexts to combat fraud and theft as well as simplify inventory control processes. It could help make a variety of industries more effective and efficient but when it comes to tagging people, the risks are considerable and require a well thought out and implemented privacy framework to avoid negating the right to privacy altogether. Much of this framework would come down to well-informed consent but there are a variety of legal compliance issues to cater for, both under current law and under future developments like the Protection of Personal Information Bill.

I've written about how important it is that consumers take an interest in how their personal data is collected and processed. WiST highlights how important this is and consumers will only have themselves to blame if they remain ignorant of the risks.

Image credits (in appearance order):

1. Big Brother Italy 2009 by _mixer_, licensed CC BY SA 2.0
2. WiST International, all rights reserved

The spread and ever increasingly availability of the Internet and digital and media technologies are the biggest evolution in human history since the industrial revolution. These developments have sent Generation Y on an evolutionary rollercoaster traveling faster than your average broadband and have caused many social changes and adaptions. With these changes emerge a generation that is completely misunderstood and highly criticized.

Among the MANY complaints about Generation Y are self-centeredness, an inability to manage time, a need for frequent praise, a lack of respect for elders, a sense of entitlement, little understanding of client service and poor face-to-face communication skills. “Generation Y is entitled, lazy, selfish, tech savvy, and incompetent,” is how Scott Greenfield, one of the finest criminal defence attorneys in NY puts it. Is this really the case? Or are we merely misunderstood?

We were not part of the starting up stages of the dot com boom, but rather we are part of an age where if you don’t have Internet access or a mobile phone we actually think you are an alien. 1995 marked the commercialisation of the Internet. I was 6, a year before I started school.  We are part of a generation where information is literally at our fingertips and Google has become our professor.  To put it into perspective: the average 15 year old has access to more information than the president of the USA had 15 years ago. Does this mean we are arrogant and know-it-alls? Nope, it just simply means we are well informed.

Like any other generation, generation Y has been shaped by the events, leaders, developments and trends of its time. The rise of instant communication technologies, new media used through websites like YouTube, Instagram and Pinterest and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter has shaped us into the people we are, how we function in the work-place and how we respond to the law and government. We are in the age of mass creativity. We no longer want to be told what something is or who we are or how we should act. Rather, we make up our own minds and choose our own paths. This independence is highlighted by the heightened importance we place on our human rights, particularly the right to privacy, equality and freedom-the principals our Constitution is founded on.

Yes, of course, with new technology comes new crime and misbehaviour. We have seen this in the London riots of 2011 where social media platforms and instant messaging were largely to blame for how well the riots were orchestrated and how communications regarding the riots could be sent across to different individuals instantly.  Or the infamous Stuxnet virus, designed by unknown parties, which made headlines in 2010 when it worked its way into Iran's nuclear programme. Or the Occupy Wall Street movement. But rather than blaming social media and instant messaging as well as our apparently immoral, disrespectful and lazy generation, governments should ask Y we are the way we are.  Economic prospects for the Millennials have worsened due to the late 2000s recession. Out of a population of 49-million, 7.5-million South Africans are currently out of work. Young people are worst affected, with over half of 18- to 25-year-olds unemployed. "This is a crisis. We call it a ticking bomb," said Zwelinzima Vavi, Cosatu's general secretary. "We think that one day there may be an explosion. Seventy-three percent of people who are unemployed in South Africa are below the age of 35 and a lot of them have been to universities.” Several governments have instituted major youth employment schemes out of fear of social unrest due to the dramatically increased rates of youth unemployment, with South Africa being no exception. President Zuma has promised to create five million jobs by 2020 in his recent State of the Nation address.

You may ask Y it is so important to change employment schemes and the working environment. Generation Y make up 27% of the population and about 5% of the legal profession. We’ve grown up in an environment where every fact, idea and opinion has a forum in which to be expressed. This leads to a movement away from the idea of being ordered to do something by your employer, but rather a strong need to collaborate and exchange ideas

Aside from the unemployment, other challenges we face is the world we grew up in. Our childhoods were tainted by major social unrest and reform. Unfortunately we also experienced a lot of empty promises from government and institutions and A LOT of divorce. This perhaps led us to learn to take care of ourselves and not to rely on institutions and outdated traditions. We have moved past the counter-culture of the 1990s. Race, sexuality, political views, religion, marital status don’t define who we are. We define ourselves through expression and collaboration. Therefore, Generation Y has high expectations of their employers, we seek out new challenges and are not afraid to question authority. This could become extremely challenging in the legal profession as well as other classical careers such as accounting, architecture, etc as these professions are based on age-old traditions and knowledge passed on from one generation to another in working environments where there is a definite hierarchy. Richard Susskind expresses it very clearly by stating that a trait common in large law firms is “irrational rejectionism”– perhaps because it is far easier to reject new ideas than give them a chance. Let’s take Paul Chambers’ story: He was arrested for a tweet he sent about Robin Hood Airport in England in January 2010. The airport suffered repeated service delays and disruptions due to cold weather, prompting Chambers to tweet:

“Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”

Chambers was later convicted for sending a “message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” under the UK Communications Act of 2003, causing him to lose his job, gain a criminal record and a mountain of fees and legal costs. TV personality, activist, and social media comedian Stephen Fry has taken sides in the Paul Chambers “Twitter Joke Trial,” saying that British judges fundamentally don’t understand how Twitter works. Fry’s stance raises the issue about the generation gap between our technology and social media driven generation and those asked to adjudicate these issues

But it isn’t all bad for us.

In his recent state of the nation address, President Zuma had typed his entire speech on an iPad. The ANC spokesperson describes the president as always being on his iPad and constantly checking and responding to social media platforms, especially Twitter.  Helen Zille is known for her responsiveness and active engagement on both Twitter and Facebook. This indicates that the government is making the move into our generation and are desperately trying to connect with us. The government is starting to recognise our need to be heard and to be able to express our opinions, a strong feature of Generation Y.

Image credit: Generation Y by Mighty mighty bigmac, licensed CC BY-ND 2.0