Evan Schuman's StorefrontBacktalk

Moreover, knowing more about the platform, hardware, software and architecture, hackers can target relevant employees (heck, their names, addresses and contact information are already posted) to get even more data from them. Indeed, hacker boards and other forums are filled with precisely this type of information.

When a key executive, salesperson, marketing executive or other user of Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn departs the retailer’s employ, this inevitably leads to the question, “Who owns this account?” Unless retailers take steps to protect this data, a simple noncompete probably won’t protect this stream of information.

Moreover, social networking sites also create opportunities for employees to (inadvertently or deliberately) post sensitive or proprietary information. This, in turn, violates nondisclosure agreements and puts a retailer’s business at risk.

In the real world, sales and marketing people are either provided with or independently create contact lists, sales leads or other ways of reaching out to potential customers. They are paid to do this, and they use company time and resources to do so. Where an employee has either a noncompete agreement or a nondisclosure agreement that covers the use or dissemination of such information, then taking this information with them after they leave typically constitutes a breach of the agreement (depending on its terms). But what happens when that information is created on a public database like LinkedIn?

Take the example of Brelyn Hammernik, formerly of TEKSystems in Minnesota. After Hammernik and TEKSystems parted ways, she updated her LinkedIn profile, thereby informing all the people connected to her on LinkedIn that she was no longer employed by TEKSystems. The noncompete she signed contained language that allegedly precluded her from communicating with any of her former professional contacts who she developed while with or for TEKSystems. Moreover, by listing the fact that she had moved to a new employer, is the new employer now liable for inducing Hammernik to violate her noncompete? The same rationale would apply if any other social networking media is applied—Twitter, Facebook, etc.

Had Hammernik, subject to a noncompete, sent a letter (you do remember letters, don’t you?) to all of her former professional contacts saying, “Oh, by the way, I am no longer with TEKSystems, I’m now with xxx. Here is my new contact information,” this would almost invariably be considered a prohibited “communication” with the professional contacts. The same would be true of individual E-mails. In Hammernik’s case, TEKSystems has sued its former employee in Minnesota alleging that, by updating her LinkedIn profile to show her new employment status, she was tacitly inviting her previous customers to come to her new employer.

Similarly, when Noah Kravitz left the employ of mobile phone site PhoneDog.com, where he was known for (and paid for) writing blogs, vlogs and product reviews, in addition to posting to his Twitter feed @PhoneDog_Noah, the question remained, who “owns” his 17,000 followers? Clearly, Kravitz created his extensive Twitterverse at the behest of his employer, probably using that company’s resources, computers and, of course, time. But is much of the goodwill engendered by his Twitter postings enured to the benefit of PhoneDog?