IASIU

"Ms.Hilton was recently arrested for possession of cocaine found inher purse, and she had the perfect Paris defense: 'That's not mypurse, that's my friend's purse,'" said Attorney James Lewis, who taughtWednesday's workshop alongside co-presenter Michael Beagle, CEO ofDiscoveryPro. "However,three weeks ago, she sent out a tweet on Twitter telling the wholeworld that she had just purchased this exact purse, and included apicture for the whole world to see."

It's this kind of valuable public information that Lewis andBeagle say is readily available to insurance fraud investigatorsfor no cost -- although it comes with some limitations and caveats.To keep investigators on the straight and narrow, the two designeda three-step process for helping insurance fraud investigatorsconduct cyber investigations of web sites such as Twitter,Facebook, and eBay.

"The first step is cyber-screening, where the investigator triesto get baseline information early in the claim investigationregarding the insured's use of the internet," said Lewis, in apre-conference interview. "Right now, all investigators ask for arephone numbers and e-mail addresses. We will provide attendees witha set of 15 questions to ask claimants, which will help guide themthrough a more thorough information-gathering process."

(In addition to this extensive list of questions andsub-questions, attendees will find a summary for hundreds ofdifferent social web sites that was compiled by Beagle in thespeaker materials thatIASIU will post on their web site in the comingweeks.)

The second step, as Lewis explained, involves taking advantageof the information supplied during the initial screening, which herefers to as "open-source cyber investigating."

"When you get the basic information from the cyber screening andsomeone tells you that they have an eBay account, you can take thataccount name and do some open source or free investigating of thatperson," said Lewis. "A good example is the aforementioned ParisHilton purse incident. 'Tweets' are public information, and thusare completely legal to search."

Is a New Tort on the Horizon? CLICKNEXT

The last stage involves examining the legal limits to whichthese investigations can be pushed, in terms of avoiding bad-faithand invasion-of-privacy claims.

"Let's say you're investigating a young man who has a Facebookpage, and you believe he has some really damning information on thepage but his profile is private, meaning only viewable by his'friends,'" said Lewis. "Could an investigator create a false pagewith a photo of a pretty woman and 'friend' the suspect, who mightapprove it without knowing that it's really a fraud investigator?In most cases, the answer is no."

Why not? According to Lewis, it's because of ethical concernsand potential legal issues, which he says will likely evolve in thecoming years.

"I'm postulating as a lawyer as to where this is all leading,and if we're not careful we may end up with a new tort calledbad-faith invasion of privacy," he said. "It's a combination of twoexisting torts. We don't know of any cases where it's happened yet,and insurers' restraints are probably tighter than what is strictlylegal under the federal code. It's more of a question of how toinvestigate your insured in good faith."

Based on the standing-room-only crowd of more than a hundredthat gathered for Wednesday's session, it's clear that Lewis andBeagle are on to something, and that cyber sleuthing is more thanjust a fad. It's an opportunity to conduct cost-effective,fact-finding missions.

"I hope all investigators left the session with the knowledge ofhow to be cyber savvy in their investigations," said Lewis. "It'simportant that investigators are up to speed on what's out there tohelp them catch up to criminals, and maybe even get ahead ofthem."