« The Coast Guard Image: Above and Below  
  A new Acquisitions Admiral and R&D Center »

The Coast Guards problem of Social Media Liability

Posted on 2 July 2009 by Ryan Erickson | Comments

There is no doubt in the minds of the internet savvy that the Coast Guard, upon jumping in head first, had come out strong in the Social Media front when comparing to other government/military services. I’m not just talking about unit blogs, I’m talking more of the real social media medium’s such as that of Twitter and Facebook, the two most popular networks they’re involved in. I did a post recently on the use of Facebook in the prosecution of a Search and Rescue case up in the New England area which brought about more conversation off line than on. And from these conversations more questions came about with the Coast Guard, social media, search and rescue, and a few questions of liability… I’ll explain.

The Good

This should be a relativity short section, not because there’s not enough “good” in the Coast Guards social media prowess, no, this will be short as we’ve covered the uses of social media since its inception into the Coast Guard’s daily mission… several times over. But to recap- the Coast Guard actively uses Twitter and Facebook on a regular basis. In fact the Coast Guard, via it’s various units, has no less than 22 official Twitter accounts and 12 Facebook accounts. This is a lot of pushing power to get the Coast Guard message out there. We’ve also discussed the CG’s uses of YouTube and Flickr; do I need to go into the myriad of official blogs again? Good job Coast Guard.

And just to clarify, the excepted definition of Social Media, as used here, is “a shift in how people discover, read and share news, information and content1.” In using this definition I’ve stumbled upon a fundamental flaw in the way that most of the CG uses their social media mediums: one way information flow (though I guess it is sharing). As of now if you look at nearly any of the twitter accounts owned by the CG you’ll note that the holders of said accounts follow very few, if any, other people on Twitter. So essentially you’re looking at a replacement of the RSS feed. Though this isn’t all bad, it kind of defeats the purpose of even having these accounts.

The Scenario

Consider this scenario as you read on; it’s 0230 on a Sunday morning when the official Twitter account of FORCECOM receives the following message:

LzyMan: @USCGFORCECOM HELP! 5 ppl trapped in capsized vessel @ 25-59N75-97W, HELF sinking!!!!

 And to make it a little more complicated a few friends of LzyMan Re-Tweet (RT) the message (a form of forwarding) so plenty of other people see it as well- even the spelling error.

The Questionable

  1. What’s the Coast Guard’s policy if they were to receive such a message?
  2. Are they obligated to do anything?
  3. What’s the public perception on these kinds of questions/situations?

These questions came to mind with the aforementioned Facebook case. And it just so happens that there has been a similar case using Twitter involving an overdue mariner off the coast of South America (read the Amver blog for more details). Long story short the folks at Amver contact the Twitter-ie and had them contact a Coast Guard Rescue Coordination Center (Command Center) – it was an actual case and all worked out for all parties a foreign RCC ran ended up running the case, but the individual wasn’t found. Using our LzyMan scenario what if the person on the other side of the USCGFORCECOM account was to receive this? And then again, what if they didn’t? (Now to be honest I don’t know who is watching that account but I did choose it as my example as whomever it is does converse with the public, though not that much.)

Of all the Twitter accounts that the Coast Guard has they’re all being followed by a differing amount of people from zero to several with a varying degree of two sided activity. So instead of wondering if the people on the other end of these accounts would know what to do if in receipt of such a message let’s ask the more important question: are any of them obligated to do anything upon receiving what appears to be a “we’re sinking and we need help” message? The current version of the Coast Guard’s Search and Rescue Policy (COMDTINST M16130.2D) hasn’t been updated since 2004 (though I’ve heard one is coming soon) so there is no provisions to actually debate a policy- only common logic can play out here. As a SAR controller and a self professed tech geek I say yes, and this is why .

The Sea Lawyer

As it turns out the keeper of our USCGFORCCOM account does reach out and converse with the public giving the sense of a two way conversationalist from the public to the Coast Guards and back again. Here is where it could get sticky- what if our fictional user, LzyMan, knows that some Guardian on the other end of @USCGFORCECOM communicates with the pubic and that is why they sent this message to USCGFORCECOM? They did say their vessel was sinking so the Coast Guard is surly to respond to right? Now, if this were in the public timeline I’m 99.99999% sure that it will be RT’d several times over, I know I would, giving it even more visibility. LzyMan obviously considers this medium a way that the Coast Guard communicates with the public; our problem has emerged. As the tech savvy generation underneath us relies on the use of texting/SMSing/Twittering for their primary means of communication the perception is that others (i.e. the USCG) do the same. A simple but effective example: I was at the laundry mat sitting next to a guy with a teenage daughter who he couldn’t get in touch with via calling her on her cell phone. As we were talking about it he remembered to Tweet her which she immediately responded to.

There is a perception that may be implied by some of our official Twitter users that this is indeed a means of communication. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s something that needs to be dealt with soon. As we continue our service wide adventure into the social media rabbit hole there is no doubt we won’t be able to get ourselves out of it, but we can mitigate problems of a cave-in.

So where does this put the Coast Guard? As of late we’ve had the two separate uses of social “tools” in doing our SAR missions, not to mention past cases of eMail notification by non-commercial means. And as I was reminded by a friend- what if Twitter or Facebook were as popular as they are now during Katrina? Many people couldn’t get voice service but could send text messages which enables one to update their Twitter or Facebook status. Now with that notion out of the way, think of what’s going to happen this summer if a large storm/hurricane makes landfall- will the Coast Guard be monitoring all of their accounts for potential SAR cases? As of today- no. There are Pubic Affairs types out there that maintain watch over social media, but only for the latest of what’s behind discussed and not necessarily a SAR case.

The Solution

Either this: This is really simple… Both Twitter and Facebook offer a space on their site for a description of the account user; it’s my recommendation to place a simple “NOT FOR EMERGENCY USE” disclaimer in there or even a short URL to such a disclaimer with each update (or on occasion). I know it sound like a no brainier, but the fact that Twitter’s already been used as a means to communicate a distress case is proof enough that something needs to be done.

Or this: We could set up official Facebook accounts and/or Twitter accounts for each Sector/District and encourage boaters to become “friends” of such accounts as a way of keeping tabs and communicating with them. Imagine if people started using Facebook as a means to publish their float plans? This is BAD JUJU!

It’s a complex problem that I believe could have some serious problems associated with it if it’s not taken care of soon. Perhaps our IT department, working with the SAR folks, could develop a program to scour the web for such… but until then it’s time to tread lightly. And it’s been said that the other services don’t have to have such disclaimers, why should we? My answer- they don’t interact with the American public 24/7/365, that’s why.

Now the real question: is this a problem?

1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media/

Category: Opinion, Policy, Social Media | Comments
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Just imagine then how long will it take to get a toilet onto a ship. I think about 3 senate hearings and decades of research.
  • mrjacksonthomas
    It's dumb. To many people falsely making claims...someone having fun "I fell in the water", someone else twittering that their love life is "dead in the water".

    No, it's not a good idea at all. Now is allowing facebook access. I don't know how many Coast Guardsmen have put up on their "status"

    "Just left Key West, enroute to Florida Straits patrol. Just interdicted 3 drug runners from Colombia and migrant smugglers"....bad idea, and unfortunately not one I made up.
  • CG Lawyer
    With respect to the potential liability of the CG for not responding to someone's "tweet" for help, 4 words control: discretionary function of government.

    That's short hand for the CG cannot be successfully sued for failing to initiate a SAR case. The discretionary function doctrine is a well established defense theory under the Suites In Admiralty Act (SAA) and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and has been succeffully asserted in by the USCG in litigation in the past (see Azille v. U.S. from the U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands in 2008 and Lewis v. U.S. from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in 2002 - linke here: http://www.nicollblack.com/pdfs/casedoc-14.pdf)

    No disclaimer on CG FB or Twitter sites is necessary IMHO.

    But IAW w/ CG Social Media policy, a disclaimer is necessary for this post.

    Please note that this post does NOT constitute legal advice NOR does it represent the views or opinions of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    BT
    NNNN
  • Anonymouse
    While the CG might not now be liable under the SAA or FTCA, all it takes is one bad fact pattern and an annoyed Congresscritter to make a change in the law. For example, if a senior Hill staffer or MoC loses a loved one at sea because the CG ignored their Twitter message, don't think for a minute that there won't be payback.

    As others have noted, we live in a world where change is constant and can produce unexpected results. For the CG to actively maintain Twitter and Facebook accounts and not use them to make decisions like launching a SAR response is, IMHO, playing with fire. The CG might be currently immune from suit, but how will the Coast Guard's failure be judged in the Court of Public Opinion?
  • CG Lawyer
    A-Mouse,

    You overstimate the power of one annoyed "Congresscritter". The legislative process requires co-sponsors to legislation, comittee hearings and a majority of the vote in BOTH houses of Congress and then a signature by the President before legislation becomes law. If it were as easy as annoying just one MoC, the CG would've long since been inundated with multiple new mandates just over Deepwater alone. That's not to say that Congress has not responded to issues with the Deepwater project, but consider how long it has taken them and how much or how little Congress is actually doing?

    Then we must also consider the rule of unintended consequences. Hypothetically, if Congress were to undue the protection of the discretionary function doctrine by legislating it away, they would unwittingly be opening up the whole of the Executive branch to various and multiple lawsuits that could be much more likely to succeed and thus cost the govt a lot more money than what is spent now in defending suits filed under the FTCA and SAA. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that would be a desirable result and I would bet that after some careful consideration, any miffed MoC might reconsider such a drastic change in the state of the law as it relates to a recognized defense under the FTCA and SAA.

    You raise a good point about the "court of public opinion". Maybe that's the more powerful impetus to spur a legislative change? But it would undoubtedly require a tragic situation with lots of media coverage to cause Congress to act. But recall the S/V Morning Dew tragedy in 1997. The CG publicly received a huge black eye over that incident. However, to my recollection, Congress did not pass any laws that were specifically intended to either penalize the CG for it's percieved failures or to assist the CG in obtaining the resources to prevent a future similar occurence. However, the widow/mother of the victims in that case did prevail in her federal lawsuit against the U.S.A and I believe after the court's decision, a settlement was reached.

    So then maybe a disclaimer on the CG's FB and Twitter site would be a good thing? But only to provide the CG a defense in the "court of public opinion".
  • anonymouse
    Wow, I didn't realize it was so hard to pass a law. ;-) Had it not been for you, I would have never known. ;-)

    I know very well how difficult it is to pass legislation, as it is part of my job. I also know that proposed changes to the laws governing "spoofing" occurred because a certain chief of staff to a certain member of congress had his home phone number spoofed.

    You are correct about the impact such a change to the SAA or FTCA would have. However, if enough people die because the CG doesn't act on a Twitter "rescue me" message, who knows what Congress might do. Given the manner in which they are printing money to "save" the economy, what's that harm of a few lawsuits?

    The CG could end the problem either by not maintaining official twitter or facebook sites, or officially incorporating them into the RCC. Sitting on the fence is no solution.
  • Steve Flowers
    A counter to Scott's article 'calling BS on social media':
    http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/07/in-defense-of-...

    Both posing great arguments.
  • Steve Flowers
    I'd also point a couple of things about 'social media'.

    1. It's an emerging medium. I don't think anyone knows all facets of benefit and detriment to an organization. Like everything else, it's good to look at any tool like a double edged sword.

    2. As the PA stated above - public affairs, just like all USCG operations and operation support, carry out the business of the organization. If we expect change overnight, we'll fail. If we lay change on the shoulders of one group, we'll also fail.

    Investigating the highs and lows of a new approach (I wouldn't necessarily classify social media as a technological phenomenon) is everyone's task. And from my vantage point, we're taking it at the right speed.

    I don't subscribe to Jay or Scott's views necessarily. But there are valid points.It's easy to get swept up and miss the real opportunities while glaring at the novelty.

    http://www.slideshare.net/JayNeely/is-social-me...
    http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2009/calling-bu...

    While you're at it, take a look at this explanation of stepped change models... food for thought:)
    http://blog.learnlets.com/?p=1073

    Hey... wait, did we just use social media to share human stuff? The rub is in how we use it, not to create convenient buckets for stuff that we'll never look at (cough CGCentral cough).
  • rnpolish
    As one of the maligned PAs referenced in the comments (albeit, a reservist), please understand that it is our job to communicate to the media and the general public about the noteworthy activities performed by Coast Guard members. As more and more of us move into the world of social media, we are spending a lot more time on "engaging" and not just one-way communication. In fact, I find myself "discussing" boot camp, the missions of the Coast Guard, etc. with family members of those considering the Coast Guard quite often.

    As for PAs monitoring Twitter and Facebook for potential SAR cases, I'm not sure this is the best solution. I might recommend setting up a specific Twitter, Facebook, etc. accounts specifically geared toward SAR cases, safety tips, float plans, etc. With that said, these accounts would need to be monitored 24/7. The PAs can help to craft key messages and promote the accounts as SAR-focused accounts. I think we should work on a proactive communications strategy to accomplish this - thoughts?

    As for PAs "being asleep on duty," you'll be happy to know that there are PAs on duty 24/7 in every district around the country and in different areas around the world. The PAs' job never ends and the work load is enormous on any given day. If you are interested, let us know if you'd like to stand duty with us for a few days so you can see the amount of PA activity and output that occurs - there's no such thing as "sleeping on the job" as a PA. Thanks.
  • I would think that if Stations and Sectors made a Facebook and twitter page for emergency use, I think it would a new set of tools for SAR response. As I see it, Social media is fast changing how society interacts with people and I think that their is a serious generation gap issue with the younger more tech savvy generation vs the older more traditional ways of doing things. The only issue I see and i see this personally, is that their are older people who are very weary of social media and even frown upon it. It's the change with older people in the US Coast Guard that we need to work on. If we can get older members in the Auxiliary active and reserve side to come around to start using Social media, I would think that we can move more forward with Social media technology.

    I would think that it would be a good idea if Sectors and Stations would start using Facebook, twitter and SMS or IM's as a way to monitor emergencies. Even more is to get the Auxiliary side involve in promoting the idea of filing your float plan via Facebook and Twitter to Sectors and Stations. I think an electronic version of a Float plan that could be used and sent to Sectors and stations would be a good way to keep sectors and stations informed as to where a boater is. Even more is having someone at the watch room or control center to monitor Twitter, Instant messages and SMS from the computer. Even have the Aux side teach people how to send an SOS via Twitter, instant messaging, Facebook and SMS.

    I think that the part of "being asleep on duty" what I meant was, that, I think no one is keeping their eye's and ears open to new and emerging social media technology that is out their and that is free and easy to use and easy to get right into.
blog comments powered by Disqus