Australian Court Lets Lawyer Serve Papers Via Facebook

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Court Lets Lawyer Serve Papers Via Facebook

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday December 16, 2008 @02:28PM from the super-poked dept.

a302b writes "A Canberra lawyer has been permitted to serve legal documents via Facebook for a couple who defaulted on a loan. He claims he needed to do this because he was unable to track them down to a physical address. At what point does our online presence become 'real?' And what opportunities are available for fraud, if social networking sites are considered legal representations of ourselves, even when they can be anonymously created under any name?"

204 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

But.... by arthurpaliden · 2008-12-16 14:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

How does he know that the person is infact the one he wants? It could be someone registering with a false name. No, I guess it could not be cause that is now illegal.

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
1. Re:But.... by Nasajin · 2008-12-16 14:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Also, the fact that there are many people on facebook with the same name, let alone false ones. For many of my friends I was only able to track them down with email addresses, because there were too many other people with the same name.
2. Re:But.... by Swizec · 2008-12-16 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but you're onto something now. Since that myspace chick got sentenced for fraud or whatnot because of registering under a false name then, legally, any name you put into facebook is either your real name and thus a legal representation of yourself, or you're a criminal and ... well, if they find the papers weren't properly served because the name wasn't real then ...
  
  Oh I don't know. It's all become such a big mess, no wonder we need lawyers to clear up these things.
3. Re:But.... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2008-12-16 14:46 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Also, the fact that there are many people on facebook with the same name, let alone false ones. For many of my friends I was only able to track them down with email addresses,
  Yes, but if you were looking for a couple on facebook & found (as the article states):
  
  they listed their birth dates, full names, and they had listed each other as friends,
  
  You'd probably be pretty confident that you'd found the right people hey?
  For the record - I don't think anything other than in person should be a legal way to serve, but email is not superior to Facebook.
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
4. Re:But.... by Nasajin · 2008-12-16 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think anything other than in person should be a legal way to serve, but email is not superior to Facebook.
  Too true. I wonder about the crediblity of an legal document sent to someone with an email address. I mean, you'd be sending stuff addresses like "donglecrotch@example.com"...
  
  Although... I'd love to see that appearing in court documents, permanently attached to someone's name.
5. Re:But.... by Xaoswolf · 2008-12-16 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I'm guessing you can determine it from who they are friends with. You can check recent activity to see if it is indeed active. If the Wall is full of posts asking who the hell they are, then it may be fake, if it is full of posts from friends and family talking about the fun times that they had last night, then it is probably legit. If the person left an email address with the debtor and that email address is linked to the facebook, that would probably help out as well...
  The real problem would be in how do you prove that they got the legal documents without getting a subpeona for the records from Facebook. With registered mail, a signature is required, but with facebook messages, there is no proof unless facebook releases the logs showing that it was read.
  
  --
  Xaotik Designs
6. Re:But.... by spazdor · 2008-12-16 14:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You'd probably be pretty confident that you'd found the right people hey?
  Well, I'd be confident that I'd found someone claiming to be the right people.
  
  --
  DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
7. Re:But.... by hairyfeet · 2008-12-16 15:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't be so sure. Here in little nowhere AR I had to argue with a bank and several other businesses that I wasn't some other guy. Finally I tracked him down and we went together to straighten it out since he TOO had been getting stuff that was for ME. When we sat down together it turned out we had the same first and last names, our fathers and mothers had the same first and last names and the same middle initials. And to top it off his sister had the same name as mine(which my mom made up) so he called his mom and it turned out she was having his sister in the same hospital at the same time my mom was having mine, and when she overheard my mom talking with the nurses about the made up name she thought it was cute and named her girl the same!
  So while I am sure that this lawyer probably has the right people, never underestimate the power of coincidence. After all if two people whose families have never met face to face could have so much in common in a little place like AR, imagine how many similar couples or families there could be on something as large as FB?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
8. Re:But.... by cromar · 2008-12-16 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, we don't know if those friends and family members are real ;)
9. Re:But.... by z-j-y · 2008-12-16 15:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  some time traveler screwed it up.
10. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 15:21 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I used to live next door to a guy with the same first name and last name as my self, and it turns out my current girlfriend was flatting with him at the time as well. Much hilarity ensued when we found out.
11. Re:But.... by __aasqbs9791 · 2008-12-16 15:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  My dad ran into someone with the same first name, last name, and one of my middle names and when he talked to the guy a little more he found out we were born on the same day in the same hospital! This was a few years ago in a small town we lived in at the time (which is over 800 miles from the said hospital, so it is even more interesting.) The guy was just passing through town with his family, so I never met him (time travel paradox adverted!)
12. Re:But.... by QuantumRiff · 2008-12-16 15:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  There was trouble tracing a problem with a person in our DB at a college I used to work in. They were listed in the system twice. Same Name, birthday, address, marital status, and age. In fact, the only difference was the social security number and gender. One had taken a few classes, one was full time. We spent forever tracking down the problem, assuming someone created a typo when they created the student record, then thought to call the phone number listed as their phone number (yep, same number) and they both came in. Husband and Wife were both named "Leslie" (Not common for a man, but not unheard of) both were born on the same day, in different states, and had been married for 25 years with children also attending the college. That day taught me a reminder I still keep around about jumping to conclusions. Sure, your 99.999% sure, but that leaves 1 out of 100,000, and someone has to be that one...
  
  --
  
  What are we going to do tonight Brain?
13. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  In a bit of irony to this...
  When I was growing up, we lived 40 miles away from another family where the parents had the same first name, last name, and middle initial as my parents (no relation). Not saying this invalidates what you are suggesting, but its not impossible that Archie & Janet are a different couple (names replaces as I am posting as AC).
14. Re:But.... by DavidTC · 2008-12-16 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  You know, women who have the same first name as their husband really need to buck the tradition of taking their husband's last name, if only to avoid confusion that, if added up, could easily waste a year of their life.
  Of course, having a married couple with the same first name and different last name would also result in confusion. Just not as much.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
15. Re:But.... by DavidTC · 2008-12-16 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and this is ignoring the fact, obviously, they could have the same last name to start with.
  What would be a real hassle is if husband and wife had a last name that's pronounced the same but spelt different.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
16. Re:But.... by davolfman · 2008-12-16 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  That's downright scary.
17. Re:But.... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2008-12-16 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Except that ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. So if you put a false name in before the fraud act was passed, you're not breaking any laws.
  
  --
  Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
18. Re:But.... by Whiteox · 2008-12-16 17:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  3 stories.
  1. I went into a cafe and saw an old friend that I haven't seen for years. I went up to his, grabbed him (ermm.. in a manly non-sexual way) and said "Larry! You old bugger! How's things hanging?" At which point I realised it wasn't Larry at all..... I felt like a dick.
  2. Small country town. This pretty woman approached me and with a wided eyed look said "OMG! What are you doing here?" Eventually she admitted that I looked exactly like her gynecologist. (No nothing ensued).
  3. After I completed uni, I went back for some reason or other and found out and was introduced to another person bearing my exact name (which is pretty unusual as my last name is spelt oddly).
  He complained to me that I left such a legacy there that everyone would ask him "So YOU'RE that {firstname lastname} that I keep hearing about!"
  Later, I discovered that he altered his last name to avoid confusion... True story.
  {grin}
  
  --
  Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
19. Re:But.... by mr_matticus · 2008-12-16 17:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  For the record - I don't think anything other than in person should be a legal way to serve, but email is not superior to Facebook.
  Why?
  Personal service is preferred, and process servers go to extreme and often comical lengths to put the paper in your hand, but some people refuse to accept service. Should you have to continue a manhunt for a year, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, in order to exercise your legal rights? How would you feel if someone potentially owed you thousands or millions of dollars and you couldn't get it because they wouldn't open the door?
  Like all forms of service other than personal service, it's a last resort after a documented showing of diligence. At some point, you're intentionally avoiding being served, because letters and messages have been left for you, and if that's the case, the notice function of service has been fulfilled. Like everything else in law, it's a balancing of competing needs. You also always have the opportunity to fight a default judgment if you can legitimately demonstrate that the dozens of attempted services were missed because you were actually, truly not available.
  As you can imagine, the chances of you disappearing from society and leaving no trace of how to contact you with employers, neighbors, family, and friends is fairly small...unless you're running from something.
20. Re:But.... by nog_lorp · 2008-12-16 17:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  What kind of bitch would hear someone saying "I came up with this totally unique name for my daughter, that will be hers alone and no one else's!" and jump to "I think I'll name my daughter that!"?
21. Re:But.... by mellon · 2008-12-16 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  pics, or it didn't happen!
22. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 17:26 · Score: 0
  
  Leaves me wondering why she didn't keep her name when they married
23. Re:But.... by riprjak · 2008-12-16 17:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  For the record - I don't think anything other than in person should be a legal way to serve, but email is not superior to Facebook.
  TFA Clearly states that the Court only allowed this because it was presented clear evidence that every other avenue had been attempted and exhausted to serve the couple. Our Courts have allowed in the past innovative approaches to serve papers where defendants have failed to respond to traditional means or attend court in their own defence.
  Also note that courts in Australia have DENIED such requests in the past, as they were not convinced in those cases that other avenues had been exhausted.
  This approach is not "legal" per se but rather only as instructed by the Court in this case; our Judges have discretion in cases where parties are evidently avoiding the serving of papers through "traditional" channels.
  This is a story about a clever investigator providing a lawyer with another approach to serve papers after all available means had been tried and failed. And it worked, the day after this was publicised locally, lo and behold the folks in question re-appeared at the address they are about to be evicted from and basically confirmed that they had indeed been found.
  err!
  jak.
24. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 17:59 · Score: 0
  
  But it doesn't count if the other guy was your brother and your parents gave you guys the same name.
25. Re:But.... by Fluffeh · 2008-12-16 18:23 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  More important than that, in Australia court papers need to be served in a manner that ensures the person being served is both given the information and also is aware that they are given it.
  
  Sending papers by the mail for example is NOT considered good enough.
  
  I don't see how this guy could guarantee that the users got proper notification that they did in fact get served the court papers. Short of getting the person to write a reply email confirming that they have indeed accepted the papers (which I would see as being as good as a signature on a sheriff's slip) I can't see how this can possibly stand up.
  
  My understanding is that any ruling based on "being served" can be easily disputed if the party serving the papers cannot prove that the right person got the papers, and that they have proof that they got the papers. I cannot see that via facebook.
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
26. Re:But.... by Kooty-Sentinel · 2008-12-16 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  Hiro Nakamura... is that you?
  
  --
  Your evaluation period for Productivity 1.0 has ended. Please purchase more coffee to continue using this product.
27. Re:But.... by sjames · 2008-12-16 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  You'd probably be pretty confident that you'd found the right people hey?
  You never know, I was looking up a friend once and found someone with the same name, profession, personal interests and bizarre sense of humor living in the right general area. A few levels deep in the website I found a picture and it wasn't him.
  Serving in person is far preferable. Second best is registered mail. Email, non-registered mail, etc should NOT be considered proper service unless the person served voluntarily responds. It's just way too easy to have a default judgment entered while having no idea there was ever a suit.
28. Re:But.... by digitalunity · 2008-12-16 19:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you're in the United States, you should read up on the E-SIGN act, signed into law in 2000 by Clinton. See here for some info.
  http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/06/esign7.htm
  The law was technology agnostic. My basic understanding is that if you have prior agreement in the US to do business with another person electronically, then something like this could work in the US too. There are specific legal requirements though for serving court summons and notices, so it might not. Who knows... IANAL.
  
  --
  You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
29. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 19:41 · Score: 0
  
  Except that ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. So if you put a false name in before the fraud act was passed, you're not breaking any laws.
  And since Bush took office, the lack of being constitutional really stopped mattering.
30. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 19:43 · Score: 0
  
  I had a bit lesser experience - I went to check whether I had been accepted to school or not, and found out that someone with all my names had applied as well to the very same school - only difference, he had a fourth name as well and I don't. Was a nice surprise indeed.. (And this in a small city in Finland and my last name being somewhat rare.. not so likely but what can you do when the odds beat you:)
  -Deepone
31. Re:But.... by T+Murphy · 2008-12-16 19:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  every other avenue had been attempted
  Lawyer: They won't be served by any other means.
  Judge: Did you try carrier pigeons? Ducks using semaphore? Pelting their door with artichokes to form Morse code? Cucumbers too?
  Lawyer: Yes, we tried all that- including the singing lemurs. Now, can we please just serve them on facebook?
  Judge: Blast! I was sure the lemurs would work. Well, we haven't even started with the ones involving mimes... don't start with those crazy ideas of yours just yet!
  
  --
  My webcomic
32. Re:But.... by SBFCOblivion · 2008-12-16 20:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  our fathers and mothers had the same first and last names and the same middle initials.
  I believe they call that 'brothers'.
33. Re:But.... by hairyfeet · 2008-12-16 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't like that. According to his mom, which my mom later confirmed(and to answer the other poster, no we have never met before then and aren't related in any way) the nurses asked my mom where she came up with such a unique sounding name, to which my mom replied "I named her after my half sisters Sheryl and Linda. I knew if I named her after one the other would get jealous so I split the difference and came up with Scherinda." And the nurses were like "That is so cute! And she is just a little sweetie! Little sweetie Scherinda!" and the woman overheard and thought it was cute and so she used it too.
  The REALLY weird part, at least to me, is that my sis went to summer school one year halfway across the state and ran smack dab into two more with that name! My sis struck up a conversation with them and brought them to meet mom when she picked her up and mom talked to the other two mothers in the parking lot and it turned out one was working as a maternity nurse when my sis was born and decided she liked the name too, and the other was visiting her big sister who had just had a baby and had apparently overheard the "Little sweetie Scherinda!" bounced around when she went to see her sister's baby and she said "that name just stuck in my head" and decided to use it when she had a daughter. The one that was a nurse said 2 of her out of state relatives heard the name from her and used it for THEIR daughters, so now there ain't no telling how many are running around with that name, all because my mom didn't want a fight between aunt Sheryl and aunt Linda. It just goes to show that it is a small and weird world after all.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
34. Re:But.... by Michael+Wardle · 2008-12-16 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one annoyed by gender-ambiguous names? Certainly not going to use such a name for my children!
35. Re:But.... by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2008-12-16 20:56 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Yes, nice story. I believe you!
  If you were trying to prove your point through reductio ad absurdum, I think that you have succeeded.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
36. Re:But.... by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2008-12-16 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  Try to imagine if the husband's last name was Leslie and they decided to follow tradition. Mr. Leslie Leslie and Mrs. Leslie Leslie.
  I'd imagine a few University administrator's heads might explode after the moment of enrolment.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
37. Re:But.... by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2008-12-16 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  The courts decide what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. And the U.S. courts have struck down quite a few laws Bush passed over the years.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
38. Re:But.... by ArsenneLupin · 2008-12-16 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  "Fortunately" California's prop 8 guarantees that you can't have an even worse situation, i.e. one where only the social security number would be different...
39. Re:But.... by ArsenneLupin · 2008-12-16 21:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  As you can imagine, the chances of you disappearing from society and leaving no trace of how to contact you with employers, neighbors, family, and friends is fairly small...unless you're running from something.
  
  I know a guy who thought it smart to just "disappear" for a year, touring the world.
  When he came back, his large real estate holdings were foreclosed, because there was problems with some tenants who failed to pay their utility bills and just left (some even taking the keys with them...). The company that my friend had hired to look after the building failed to do anything about the situation, so the city moved to confiscate the building in order to pay the bills.
40. Re:But.... by gnasher719 · 2008-12-16 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but you're onto something now. Since that myspace chick got sentenced for fraud or whatnot because of registering under a false name then, legally, any name you put into facebook is either your real name and thus a legal representation of yourself, or you're a criminal and ... well, if they find the papers weren't properly served because the name wasn't real then ...
  
  Lori Drew wasn't convicted purely for using a false name. She was convicted because she used that false name to harrass someone (with great success), which wouldn't have been possible under her real name, because the harrassed girl would have known that she wasn't talking to a 16 year old boy but to her 40 year old female neighbour.
41. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 22:26 · Score: 0
  
  I just went through the same thing in my college, and we're even both members of the honor society.
42. Re:But.... by Swizec · 2008-12-16 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  True, but the precedent still gives a very good basis for anyone wanting to exploit it.
43. Re:But.... by Dan541 · 2008-12-16 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  How is email not superior?
  I have seen face book go off-line before, but not email.
  We are required to provide the government with our postal addresses, perhaps if the same was done for e-mail we would see more use of it.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
44. Re:But.... by Dan541 · 2008-12-16 23:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Am I the only one annoyed by gender-ambiguous names?
  
  The worse is with gender-ambiguous voices over the phone. I'm sure I have upset many people over the years.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
45. Re:But.... by hjf · 2008-12-16 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  yeah but it can be funny, like this
46. Re:But.... by Michael+Wardle · 2008-12-17 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  He he he. I called an older woman receptionist a man's name just the other day!
  If only she'd actually waited for the phone call to connect before she started saying "Hello, name speaking".
  Instead I assumed she was someone else who worked at the company.
47. Re:But.... by szquirrel · 2008-12-17 01:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  When we sat down together it turned out we had the same first and last names, our fathers and mothers had the same first and last names and the same middle initials...
  After all if two people whose families have never met face to face could have so much in common in a little place like AR...
  ...can't think... too many jokes... all trying to get out at once...
  
  --
  Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
48. Re:But.... by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure it wasn't really him? Maybe his bizarre sense of humour led him to post a fake picture. Or maybe he just didn't want his picture associated with all that information about him.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
49. Re:But.... by cynical+kane · 2008-12-17 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  My mother ran into someone with the same first name, last name, middle name, suffix, and prefix. It even turned out that we were born in the same hospital, within one month of each other, to the same surrogate mother, and we have the same identical mysterious tatoos that represent a coded map on the smalls of our backs!
50. Re:But.... by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Even if Facebook released logs showing that yep, somebody read the message, there's always the possibility that a relative/friend knows your password and logged in as you. In the case of a family member, they might have even used your computer, and you wouldn't even find an unusual IP address in the log.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
51. Re:But.... by Yewbert · 2008-12-17 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  If more people would find and marry mates with the same names, etc., like this, it'd actually solve some problems. US Mail meant for one would at last be more likely to arrive at the right house and get sorted out by the right people that way.
  Then again, their credit reports might be a little hairier to sort out, with them having the same address and all.
  Makes my brane hurt.
52. Re:But.... by kabocox · 2008-12-17 03:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Personal service is preferred, and process servers go to extreme and often comical lengths to put the paper in your hand, but some people refuse to accept service. Should you have to continue a manhunt for a year, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, in order to exercise your legal rights? How would you feel if someone potentially owed you thousands or millions of dollars and you couldn't get it because they wouldn't open the door?
  I'd be more upset at the system that allowed that rather than the individual that evaded being called up by the system. The thing is that process server is supposed to make sure that the right people get the papers. Think of 3-5 people with the same name living on the same street with only the address numbers being slightly different. I doubt that happens too much in the physical world, but it would be much easier to happen online.
  I had a college friend named Mark Miller. When I tried looking him up a few months ago, there were 10 Mark Millers in the same city as he was last known. I didn't need to find him badly enough to actually contact each of the 10 to find out if any of them where him, but I'd imagine that a process server would have to do that and then physically contact the person. Well, calling people on the phone/cell or e-mailing them is easy. It's difficult to actually verify if the person that you've contacted is the person that you actually should be talking to though. Esp if you aren't already familiar with the person. (I might remember my friend from college and could tell him from the other 9 Mark Millers, how the heck would a process server tell them apart? The only thing that he has going for him is the address to limit it down a bit.
  It sounds like this lawyer didn't even have a current address. I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound like it should be valid at all. If anything, it would just let lawyers serve things without the proper people finding out until after the lawyer has had a court date and used his time to say that the other party defaulted so his side should win.
53. Re:But.... by arthurpaliden · 2008-12-17 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Took my Mum to the doctor. The Nurse comes into the waiting room and calls for Mrs. 'Smith'. My Mum and another little old lady say "Yes". The Mrs. 'Smith' who lives on 'Main' Street. The two little old ladies say "Yes". The nurse says the Mrs. 'Smith' who is 75 years old. Again both say "Yes". She finally had to use birthdays to get the right lady.
  
  --
  Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
54. Re:But.... by DeepHurtn! · 2008-12-17 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL either, but I'm fairly confident that law is about contract law, which is a totally different beast than summons, notices, &c.
55. Re:But.... by h4rm0ny · 2008-12-17 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  This reminds me of the classic "Who promoted Major Major Major, Major?"
  
  --
  
  Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
56. Re:But.... by YttriumOxide · 2008-12-17 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going for that kind of wordplay though, it's hard to beat: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo", or "Mary, while John had 'had', had had 'had had', 'had had' had had been better". In German, I've always been a fan of "Wenn hinter Fliegen Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach".
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
57. Re:But.... by piltdownman84 · 2008-12-17 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  How does he know that the person is infact the one he wants? It could be someone registering with a false name. No, I guess it could not be cause that is now illegal.
  Crap time to cancel my Boris Yeltsin account, before they catch me
58. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-17 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  And to top it off his sister had the same name as mine
  His sister's name is "hairyfeet" ?
59. Re:But.... by socz · 2008-12-17 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  see thats why i never give out my real info! So they can try to say i'm socrates but good luck to me admitting that online!
  
  Doh~
  
  --
  My abilities are only limited by my imagination
60. Re:But.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-17 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  I would say that for such an extreme one-off, don't both to identify it upfront. Let it slip thru the cracks and just compensate the affected individuals. The frequency of it happening seems so low that the cost of trying to prevent it would be greater that the cost for cleaning up such a problem. :-)
61. Re:But.... by mr_matticus · 2008-12-17 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  And he left no way for anyone to get in touch with him? If so, then those are the consequences. If you have obligations, disappearing makes it impossible for anyone to help you.
62. Re:But.... by mr_matticus · 2008-12-17 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be more upset at the system that allowed that rather than the individual that evaded being called up by the system. The thing is that process server is supposed to make sure that the right people get the papers. Think of 3-5 people with the same name living on the same street with only the address numbers being slightly different. I doubt that happens too much in the physical world, but it would be much easier to happen online.
  An argument from ignorance. Those 3-5 people would have other distinguishing characteristics, and if they could not be satisfactorily identified, then they would all be contacted. The wrong person would simply have to submit proof that they got the wrong person.
  It is not as though it's a bare email address with no context. It would be an email address reported on a credit application, a bank, or confirmed by an employer. There is no address book of email addresses, so the only way to get an email address for a person is to have some verifiable real-world link to them, or to have extensive circumstantial evidence.
  
  Well, calling people on the phone/cell or e-mailing them is easy. It's difficult to actually verify if the person that you've contacted is the person that you actually should be talking to though.
  No it isn't. If they're the wrong person, they'll tell you and you can take steps to verify it.
  
  It sounds like this lawyer didn't even have a current address. I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound like it should be valid at all.
  RTFA. They defaulted on their house payments, and multiple attempts were made to contact them at home, by telephone, and by email. Again, you don't get yourself off the hook simply by refusing to open your door.
63. Re:But.... by PopeGumby · 2008-12-17 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  really? i dont have the same first name and middle initial as my brother...
64. Re:But.... by kabocox · 2008-12-18 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  The wrong person would simply have to submit proof that they got the wrong person.
  So it's now not up to the system to prove that they've got the right person, but to anyone caught randomly close with the same name now has to come out and yell up and and down "it's not me, it's not me." and hope that the system is sane in their case?
  It would be an email address reported on a credit application, a bank, or confirmed by an employer. There is no address book of email addresses, so the only way to get an email address for a person is to have some verifiable real-world link to them, or to have extensive circumstantial evidence.
  I don't know about you, but I've never seen a blank for e-mail address at anywhere other than at an ISP. All you really have circumstantial evidence not actual evidence that they may match up.
  RTFA. They defaulted on their house payments, and multiple attempts were made to contact them at home, by telephone, and by email. Again, you don't get yourself off the hook simply by refusing to open your door.
  Um, sounds like it should be trivial for the bank/lending institution to get the house/property back and have the police arrest the squatters. Though in practice it turns out to be difficult.
65. Re:But.... by mr_matticus · 2008-12-18 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  So it's now not up to the system to prove that they've got the right person, but to anyone caught randomly close with the same name now has to come out and yell up and and down "it's not me, it's not me." and hope that the system is sane in their case?
  No. "Randomly close with the same name" is not random. You were the one that introduced the problem of ten on the same street, with the idiotic assumption that name and street address are the only factors used.
  Your continued ignorance of this issue is tiresome. I'll ask simply, what is wrong with making every possible attempt at service? Is that not considered diligent? Perhaps you are also ignorant of the fact that the next stop after email service is service by publication. Why should they be prohibited from trying anything that might possibly work, having failed through conventional means, prior to the newspaper publication?
  You seem to be upset about something you simply do not understand. You have an obligation, when you participate in society, to be able to be contacted by your obligors and government officials. If you make a deliberate choice to go off the radar, you are either taking a calculated risk with that known consequence, or you are intentionally trying not to be found (in which case the notice function of service is not necessary, because you are willfully hiding from it and therefore know about it). If you are forced to be inaccessible for a period of time, you can take steps when you come back to prove that and have the defaults lifted, or if you believe you were never notified, you can view the records of the contact attempts.
  Where is the problem?
  
  I don't know about you, but I've never seen a blank for e-mail address at anywhere other than at an ISP. All you really have circumstantial evidence not actual evidence that they may match up.
  You're either joking or completely disconnected. All credit applications, car loans, mortgage packages, banks, and most monthly service providers (cable, ISP, cell phone, utilities) ask for an email contact when you sign up. It is usually optional, but it is hardly circumstantial. Again, were you actually reading, you would also know that a work or verifiable personal email address (as obtained through a friend or family member in recent contact) is used. And again, credit references supplied can be used to verify this information.
  
  Um, sounds like it should be trivial for the bank/lending institution to get the house/property back and have the police arrest the squatters. Though in practice it turns out to be difficult.
  Yes, because eviction is a legal action that requires service!
66. Re:But.... by __aasqbs9791 · 2008-12-22 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, I meant adverted. It was well advertised*. *Spell check didn't help me there, so sue me.
Somewhat reasonable by AKAImBatman · 2008-12-16 14:32 · Score: 3, Informative

If the couple was in hiding but was maintaining an active presence on Facebook, then I can see how this would be reasonable. The lawyer was required to deliver the papers to the last known address is addition to serving notice via Facebook. Interesting, the profile disappeared after the papers were served...
Of course, it will still be up to the judge to decide if the experiment was a success. If he decides that the papers were not properly served even after allowing it, he won't give a summary judgment. Alternatively, the judgment could be vacated if the couple later challenges the judgment and the next judge finds that papers were not properly served.
(IANAL, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express once!)

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
1. Re:Somewhat reasonable by danpat · 2008-12-16 14:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I also am not a lawyer, but my housemate is, and he agrees with you.
2. Re:Somewhat reasonable by DuranDuran · 2008-12-16 15:01 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  IANALBMHI?
  
  --
  "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
3. Re:Somewhat reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  I worked with a company developing a Facebook app about a year or so ago. If I remember correctly, there's no way to know if a message has been received by the member.
  Things may have changed now, but not being sure it was the right people coupled with not being sure that the papers even got to the people who may not be the right people seems pretty messed up.
4. Re:Somewhat reasonable by Zwicky · 2008-12-16 15:35 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  If I ever get sued for anything I am so working that line into my defense.
  
  --
  "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
5. Re:Somewhat reasonable by cgtu · 2008-12-16 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL either and while there are fake profiles all over facebook, it also seems like a more "real" place than many others, especially if one is able to link the people to known friends and associates.
6. Re:Somewhat reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-17 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  IANALBMHI?
  
  I Am Not A Lawyer But My Hand Is?
One more reason by VonSkippy · 2008-12-16 14:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Reason #9,382,329 NOT to waste time on those stupid "social" networking sites.
1. Re:One more reason by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 14:56 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Or at least to not have your profile open to other members of your network - espically when that network is one called "Australia"
2. Re:One more reason by DavidTC · 2008-12-16 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, regional networks are sorta stupid. I mean, I belong to the 'Atlanta' one, despite living over 100 miles away...but I've gone through and set almost all my information to just friends, with my high school and college allowed to 'friends of friends' just in case they think they know me but aren't sure. Networks get nothing.
  It's incredibly dumb to use the default and let anyone who just asserts they live in the same region as you have access to your information. Any information.
  As far as I know, people can join as many regional networks as they want, as often as they want, so with a few logical deductions about you they could figure out what networks you're in, join them, and see all that stuff.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
3. Re:One more reason by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I know, people can join as many regional networks as they want, as often as they want, so with a few logical deductions about you they could figure out what networks you're in, join them, and see all that stuff.
  No, you can only join one at a time, and you can't change it more than once per x-number-of-days (can't remember, 1 or 3 perhaps?). I know this because I've asserted to live in the same region as someone to see if they had more info available for network members... yeah, I'm bad. Bad me... I should be ashamed of myself. (Their public profile didn't show any additional information for people in their regional network anyway.)
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
4. Re:One more reason by shutdown+-p+now · 2008-12-17 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  Next up, court papers served in a reply to a Slashdot comment!
What next? by Finallyjoined!!! · 2008-12-16 14:35 · Score: 1

A flushing WC in the woods for our friends of the Ursine persuasion?

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Wait, via Facebook? by strredwolf · 2008-12-16 14:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

Couldn't the lawyer request Facebook give up the goods on the couple?

--

--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
1. Re:Wait, via Facebook? by SpaceCracker · 2008-12-16 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't the lawyer request Facebook give up the goods on the couple?
  Yeah, they probably registered their home address in Facebook as 17 Main street, Disneyland or something of the sort. (and phone # 234-DONALD)
  
  --
  sigo ergo sum
2. Re:Wait, via Facebook? by HJED · 2008-12-16 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, Facebook is not hosted in Australia
  
  --
  null
3. Re:Wait, via Facebook? by WallyDrinkBeer · 2008-12-16 16:23 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'm sure Facebook would be happy to supply IP/date-time details if they were Chinese bloggers. Alas, they are just Australian deadbeats.
4. Re:Wait, via Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  Well, when the cops got to 1060 W Addison they weren't able to find the couple.
5. Re:Wait, via Facebook? by Antique+Geekmeister · 2008-12-16 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  You got it in one. 'National Security' claims from big governments that can cut off Facebook at the routers have a lot more power than a straightforward civil suit. I've actually attempted to get law enforcement involved in tracking criminal activity from spammers. They couldn't be bothered to get the necessary subpoenas unless the case was quite large: I imagine that the threshold for a lawyer on a budget to get such subpoenas is also pretty high.
Facebook no different to email. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2008-12-16 14:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Yawn - Facebook is no different to email & US courts have served via email in the past.
One crappy, lossy, non-guaranteed electronic communications medium vs another.

--
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
1. Re:Facebook no different to email. by mysidia · 2008-12-16 14:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually, there is a difference. In general, you are pretty certain who an e-mail address goes to.
  If the ISP is contacted to obtain a person's e-mail address, they can definitely provide the info, they can also match the user up with customer billing records. This information is fairly unlikely to be fake.
  With e-mail, your address may also be exchanged in advance, i.e. through some other means of communication, so the person serving can show solid evidence that the e-mail address belongs to the person.
  I.e. if the legal matter concerns copyright material posted on blah.example.com, and the WHOIS info for that domain lists the e-mail address, then there is PROOF that the e-mail address is provided by a person who controls the domain.
  However, with facebook, the target party is found by a simple search for their name and (possibly geography).
  Since multiple people have the same name, even in the same area, it is unreasonable to expect you have verifiably served the right person.
  You may have accidentally sent the information to the wrong profile.
  Also, the purpose of facebook (for many users) is simply to display profile information.
  Many users don't expect to receive messages of any sort, so they don't check them.
  This is in stark contrast to an e-mail service whose sole purpose is to receive messages, and is effective, so long as the account is not abandoned.
2. Re:Facebook no different to email. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 15:02 · Score: 0
  
  If I got something like that in email it would most likely be marked as spam and deleted unread just like everything else that claims to be from some busisness etc. Email is a very dumb place for such and there should never be anything legally binding involved with it as most can never even authenticate the source properly. If this gets to be an accepted method then it will no doubt lead to a lot of fake notices for spam delivery.
  It is perhaps time for someone to code an exploit to infect some law firm's computers and send out some bogus legal shit to some congressmen and senators. That might help get rid of some of this stupidity.
3. Re:Facebook no different to email. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2008-12-16 15:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If the ISP is contacted to obtain a person's e-mail address, they can definitely provide the info, they can also match the user up with customer billing records. This information is fairly unlikely to be fake.
  An ISP can provide an email address, but hardly anyone uses an ISP's email - they use one of the big webmail providers. So there's no guarantee the recipient will check their ISP provided mailbox.
  However, with facebook, the target party is found by a simple search for their name and (possibly geography).
  Since multiple people have the same name, even in the same area, it is unreasonable to expect you have verifiably served the right person.
  Since this is slashdot, it is unreasonable of me to expect you to have read the article - so here's the relevant quote:
  
  McCormack argued that he knew he found the right people online because they listed their birth dates, full names, and they had listed each other as friends
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
4. Re:Facebook no different to email. by DavidTC · 2008-12-16 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  All of this is stupid. It's impossible to prove they've actually read the summons without the cooperation of facebook. Sure, you can tell when someone has logged in, but not that they've read some message.
  And if you have facebook's cooperation, obviously, you should just get their IP and email address and track them down in person.
  The courts really shouldn't be letting papers be served in any way but in person.
  
  --
  If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
5. Re:Facebook no different to email. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  I host my own email for several domains.
  Which email address am I legally required to check to make sure I get the documents?
  Is the email "received" as soon as my server receives it, as soon as my client receives it, or as soon as my eyeballs receive it? What method is used to determine this has happened?
  Is the law firm's email configured correctly to make it past my spam filters (responding correctly to 450's, using a real fqdn, spf set up correctly or not at all, makes it past bayesian filtering, rbls, etc)?
  Am I now legally required to keep logs tracking what happens with every single personal email I receive (even those that are rejected at HELO?
  What if I share that email address with my entire family and my kid deletes it? Have I been served?
  There's no significant difference. Serving someone by email is as stupid as serving someone by Facebook. There is absolutely no method to be verify the communication was received by the correct party at any given time.
6. Re:Facebook no different to email. by mysidia · 2008-12-16 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  An ISP can provide an email address, but hardly anyone uses an ISP's email
  I happen to know that a lot of people do use ISP provided e-mail addresses.
  I don't have precise statistics on the use of web-based mail services. They are popular, particularly for secondary throwaway mailboxes.
  But a lot of people won't touch those services due to the excessive ads, slow user interfaces, and not being able to use Outlook Express, or their favorite mail client with them.
  Since this is slashdot, it is unreasonable of me to expect you to have read the article - so here's the relevant quote:... McCormack argued that he knew he found the right people online because they listed their birth dates, full names, and they had listed each other as friends
  So?
  That doesn't make Facebook the same as e-mail.
  He has know way of knowing that a facebook message is likely to be seen.
  Someone who uses e-mail definitely has to check their messages to participate in e-mail.
  In fact: if they don't, on free services, the account is expired and deleted.
  So the fact the account still exists 90 days or so after the message was sent is essentially proof that the recipient has checked their e-mail.
  An issue that remains is (though), the message may never have been viewable, spam filters may have stopped it from reaching recipient's inbox.
  This is equivalent to trying to serve someone by postal mail, but the message gets lost in the mail.
  Without a return receipt, there is no acknowledgement of receiving.
  Which brings me to a final difference between facebook and e-mail:
  With e-mail the sender can request a return receipt, so that (in general), they actually get feedback when the recipient opens the message.
  Proof of delivery to the mailbox is also available (via mail server logs)
  A web application offers no real proof. There is no delivery protocol or well-known software involved that assures actual successful delivery of the message. For example, an error in Facebook's custom application may prevent the message from ever having arrived, even though the sender thought it did.
7. Re:Facebook no different to email. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2008-12-16 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  He has know way of knowing that a facebook message is likely to be seen.
  The same way that he has no way of knowing that an email message has been seen by the intended recipient.
  Read receipts, server logs, etc, etc do not actually show the intended recipient read an email.
  A web application offers no real proof.
  I wasn't arguing that it did. Neither email nor Facebook offer proof.
  Oh - and at the risk of dragging this convo offtopic, all three big webmail providers allow you to read your email through outlook/thunderbird/other offline mail client.
  
  --
  There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
8. Re:Facebook no different to email. by syousef · 2008-12-16 18:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  One crappy, lossy, non-guaranteed electronic communications medium vs another.
  Email version:
  Deposition Subpoena to Testify
  GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUBPOENA AND SUMMON THE FOLLOWING WITNESS:
  John Doe of 53 Sanity Street SanesVillie
  Facebook version
  lolz. Hey John. U been summ'd to Court. cu there. haha. sucker!
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
9. Re:Facebook no different to email. by jesterzog · 2008-12-16 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  It really depends on the person. I know plenty of people who have an ISP-supplied email account but don't even know how to check it, let alone receive anything that's sent to it. These same people quite happily leave Facebook running all day in the background, and will use it as their primary means to communicate.
  In this case, there were also several other reasons to verify that the profiles were correct besides names and regions. The article states that it was made more certain thanks to them listing dates of birth, and friends. Being Facebook, they probably also had photos up on the profiles, in case there was any doubt.
  Personally I think that as long as serious efforts are made to contact people in whichever ways are most appropriate and supported by good reasons, and a judge is satisfied that it's likely a person is just going to stupid efforts to avoid being served, and also satisfied that the efforts are reasonable and that the person should have received the papers beyond a reasonable doubt, it should be up to that person to challenge any judgements afterwards and put forward whatever legitimate reasons they have for not having received the papers.
10. Re:Facebook no different to email. by Dan541 · 2008-12-16 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook is also unreliable, I have seen it go offline before.
  If you contact me via facebook you are depending upon a third party to pass the message onwards to my email, just like giving the letter to my neighbour and saying "Can you drop this in #26 please" if this does not happen for any reason then the message is not received.
  Whereas if they email me it is guaranteed to arrive in my inbox. Once my server accepts the email that's the equivalent of pushing it through a mail slot on my front door.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
11. Re:Facebook no different to email. by Dan541 · 2008-12-16 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  What if I share that email address with my entire family and my kid deletes it? Have I been served?
  No, but you have certainly been owned!
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
12. Re:Facebook no different to email. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-17 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  ok so the big 3 are:
  googleMail
  yahoo
  and ?
  as hotmail/liveMail does not allow pop/imap access .
13. Re:Facebook no different to email. by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Regarding e-mail, one could very easily not get the summons (or claim to have not received it when one actually did) because it was marked as spam. Just delete the e-mail, clear your spam folder "periodically" (meaning: soon, and you can always claim you do it periodically) and there's no evidence. Or you could flag it as spam manually and mark it as unread, in which case, if they tracked you down before it got cycled out of the spam folder, the e-mail would still be in the spam folder to support your claim.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
14. Re:Facebook no different to email. by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  You could also just argue that the e-mail must have been caught by your spam filters and you never received it.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
15. Re:Facebook no different to email. by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the e-mail could be marked as spam, or you could share your e-mail account with someone else who assumes the message is spam or phishing and deletes it.
  Heck, you could even argue that you habitually delete all unsolicited commercial e-mails (banking, advertising, legal, etc) without reading them because you assumed they were phishing attempts (this might not even be a lie – lots of people do).
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
16. Re:Facebook no different to email. by carvalhao · 2008-12-17 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Do you want to compare email reliability to snail mail reliability? My country (Portugal) has an 1.4 % error rate in snail mail delivery. That's 1.4 lost each 100. I receive about 150 emails per day. I don't miss out on 2 email per day. Even with spam.
17. Re:Facebook no different to email. by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have a point if snail mail were an acceptable method of serving a summons.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
18. Re:Facebook no different to email. by Dan541 · 2008-12-17 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  The Spam part is true, but only incompetence at their end would get them flagged as spam (at least by my system). Then again considering they threaten to take legal action in the wrong jurisdiction, despite it being their profession I don't think they would be all that competent on a technical level either.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
19. Re:Facebook no different to email. by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  The point isn't that the message was marked as spam, the point is that they can't prove it wasn't, and if you didn't receive it, you weren't summoned.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
20. Re:Facebook no different to email. by Dan541 · 2008-12-17 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  I personally think these notices should only be served in person. My point is that facebook is no better than email, somehow I appear to have side tracked.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
21. Re:Facebook no different to email. by clone53421 · 2008-12-18 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  From your first comment in this thread, it seemed more like you were saying e-mail would be significantly better than Facebook. Apparently we can agree that they're equally bad.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
WTF -- this is OLD news by hardcorejon · 2008-12-16 14:46 · Score: 0, Troll

fer chrissakes, i read about this during my morning commute -- on the AP news iphone app.
Slashdot used to break news, now they rehash stuff that the MSM picked up 12 hours earlier, very disappointing. get with the times dudes.
- jonathan.
1. Re:WTF -- this is OLD news by hardcorejon · 2008-12-16 15:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ah, if only there were a "troll but true" comment rating.
2. Re:WTF -- this is OLD news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 16:07 · Score: 0
  
  ah, if only there were a "troll but true" comment rating..
3. Re:WTF -- this is OLD news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 18:46 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry, but someone who uses "anymore" in the positive rather than in the negative can't possibly be speaking truth. They're speaking gibberish.
4. Re:WTF -- this is OLD news by dword · 2008-12-16 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  So if it hurts your ass, go away. Some of us still enjoy it.
5. Re:WTF -- this is OLD news by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-17 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  slashdot just broke some news!
  
  dword enjoys having his ass hurt. film at 11.
6. Re:WTF -- this is OLD news by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Good grief, what did you expect? Slashdot publishes stories before the AP line goes out? Plenty of news sources get stories from the AP, and obviously you're getting the news fastest by reading the AP stories as they're released.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
My real name is Spacecracker by SpaceCracker · 2008-12-16 14:50 · Score: 1

Honest to god. Cross my heart and hope to die. Would you consider me using a false name in this respectable site? Any legal documentation addressed to Spacecracker (me) can be delivered here. (sorry, I do not "live" in the land of Facebook).

--
sigo ergo sum
This could be used for by gregbot9000 · 2008-12-16 14:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

a new type of spam.

The question I have is how dose he know they read it? As I understand it, the key is making sure the person knows they have been served.
1. Re:This could be used for by jamesh · 2008-12-16 16:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That's a very valid point.
  "Yes your Honor, I do recall receiving a message with that subject/content but I deleted it assuming it was spam or a virus. After all, what kind of an idiot would serve a legal document via Facebook?".
  Aside from the fact that inferring that a judge is an idiot is seldom a good idea, it would appear to be a valid assumption - it's what I would do if I saw an email with a subject that looked like it contained a legal document (or any attachment from someone I didn't know), and ditto for a facebook message if I had a facebook account.
2. Re:This could be used for by Oidhche · 2008-12-16 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. Chances are the actual papers were a .doc attachment. I'd never ever open a .doc sent to me from an unknown address. Hell, I'd think twice before opening a signed .doc sent by a close real-life friend.
3. Re:This could be used for by Jason+Levine · 2008-12-17 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Same here. I've gotten a couple of e-mails from the "FBI" claiming that they'll be stopping by in a week to investigate me for some illegal money transfers. Now, putting aside the fact that I'm not involved in anything of the sort and putting aside the fact that the FBI wouldn't warn me that they would be stopping by in a week, why would they contact me via e-mail? So I junked it as spam. If I got a "you've been served" e-mail, I'd junk that too. E-mail and Facebook shouldn't be valid methods of serving someone with legal papers.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
4. Re:This could be used for by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  You can't attach files to Facebook messages, so you'd have to host them somewhere and include a link. The same argument about untrusted senders would apply, though.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
5. Re:This could be used for by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-17 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  The question I have is how dose he know they read it? As I understand it, the key is making sure the person knows they have been served.
  In most of the US, if you can prove that you've done due diligence in tracking down the party that you are trying to serve and have been unable to do so in a reasonable amount of time, you can publish the summons in the major newspaper(s) of the region and consider that party served.
  This rule came about because if someone knows that they are being served, they can easily refuse to accept anything from anyone and therefore can claim they were never served.
Internet Filtering is the Answer by innocence18 · 2008-12-16 15:01 · Score: 1

Hopefully when we get our mandatory internet censorship that Stephen Conroy wants they will blacklist Facebook and we can finally put an end to this sort of stupidity.

--
Anonymity of the internet is responsible for the views expressed in my post.
Proven by the RIAA by BearGrylls · 2008-12-16 15:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

If nothing else, the RIAA has proven that the end of online anonymity is coming. Why is anyone surprised that this is happening? It's sketchy, and from what I understand barely legal, but it's gaining momentum.
1. Re:Proven by the RIAA by Jason+Levine · 2008-12-17 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I don't think it is the RIAA that is proving this. It's the social networking scene and people posting intimate details of their lives along with their names and personal information. When "John User" doesn't think twice about setting up his Facebook account to list his real name, location, date of birth, and a listing (with photos) of all of his recent activities, his anonymity vanishes.
  And yes, I know this is being posted from an account using my real name. I set it up years ago. I've recently started using a pseudonym for many online sites, but can't simply change my Slashdot username.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
That wasn't me... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 15:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

If someone tried to serve me via Facebook, they wouldn't be serving me--they'd be serving someone who created a fake Facebook account in my name and posted a bunch of my pictures.
E-mail? That damn hosting provider of mine keeps losing e-mail; I must have never gotten it.
If you want me, you'll have to use Certified Mail or serve me in person. :-)
As a sysadmin, I had one extremely difficult user who would e-mail me with "read receipt" AND "delete receipt" so she could time my replies from the moment I read her messages. Of course, I declined every single receipt from her. I'm just thankful the higher-ups running the Exchange server required permission to send receipts...
1. Re:That wasn't me... by Kalriath · 2008-12-16 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just thankful the higher-ups running the Exchange server required permission to send receipts...
  Tools > Options > E-mail Options > Tracking Options.
  It's not your system administrators who make that decision.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
2. Re:That wasn't me... by jamesh · 2008-12-16 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's even easier than that. You saw the message but assumed it was spam and deleted it without reading it. It's possible to prove that the email made it to your inbox (assuming someone, somewhere is keeping logs), but it's not possible to prove that your lack of response was anything other than that you assumed it was spam and deleted it.
  It makes me a bit mad that someone would try and get out of their debts by just hiding, but me getting mad doesn't make this solution any more valid, and if someone tried it on me they'd get stonewalled.
3. Re:That wasn't me... by jamesh · 2008-12-16 16:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's not your system administrators who make that decision.
  Just about all such settings are enforceable via group policy these days, and as such can be 'enforced' by your system administrator. It's easy enough to get around though that I don't think it would stand up in a court of law.
4. Re:That wasn't me... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  And if someone would have tried that, even if the higher ups would have required permission, it wouldn't have left my workstation.
  I pull from the server over pop3s. My client isn't Outlook and ignores server policy altogether.
5. Re:That wasn't me... by thegrassyknowl · 2008-12-16 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  Tools > Options > E-mail Options > Tracking Options.
  That's great if you're using Lookout. It's also great if your sysadmin didn't make a point of stripping receipt headers out of emails in transit.
  I had a troublesome boss. He'd request receipts for every email he sent. He'd time the responses and use the delay as an excuse to yell at the staff (or suppliers, etc). I got the shits one day and just stripped out all the receipt headers in the MTA. Never got another receipt prompt and never heard another thing about it.
  
  --
  I drink to make other people interesting!
6. Re:That wasn't me... by supersat · 2008-12-16 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  ... and then they'd serve you via publication, which seems a lot more error-prone but still commonly used and accepted.
7. Re:That wasn't me... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-17 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  Or via newspaper (commonly referred to as being served by publication). It's accepted when the servee is difficult or impossible to get ahold of.
8. Re:That wasn't me... by csartanis · 2008-12-18 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Dont use Outlook?
Necessary or Just Cheap? by DynaSoar · 2008-12-16 15:11 · Score: 1

"He claims he needed to do this because he was unable to track them down to a physical address."
He's not necessarily supposed to be able to. That what they hire investigators for, and process servers to deliver them. My money says he just wanted to keep as much of his money as he could.
The usual excuses will now be compounded with the excuses familiar to anyone who's been on line for long: "I downloaded it with my email, but it got corrupted." "My hard drive crashed" "Someone hacked into my computer/account and" [deleted it/I thought they faked it/they put that page up, that was never me to begin with/etc.] "I haven't used that account for X amount of time" "My hard drive crashed" (yes, that gets used enough to bear repeating) "You must have sent it to the wrong account because I never saw it" "It was in some format I couldn't read; I only use FooBar format".
Anyone who really wants to avoid it will make sure one or more of those are true when it comes to telling the court why they didn't respond, and very few will be available that will be able to prove otherwise.

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by Zadaz · 2008-12-16 15:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

What trog wrote the summary?
Most of my clients know me only via phone number, email address, or chat alias. I still produce work and they still pay me.
My bank and my credit cards knows me by a made up user name. They still let me move my money around.
Amazon only knows me by a made up name and they trust me enough to take my money and ship goods to some address I just gave them.
The only thing controversial about serving documents via Facebook is that I don't know how you can verify delivery, which is kind of the whole point of serving papers.
1. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  My bank and my credit cards knows me by a made up user name. They still let me move my money around.
  Not true. Your bank knows who you are. Banks in all civilized countries (even Switzerland) are required to "know your client" to prevent money laundering and other financial crimes.
  Having established who you are (by some reasonable means), the bank then allows you to use other means (credit cards, online banking) for transactions. But the transactions are still tied to you.
  Amazon only knows me by a made up name and they trust me enough to take my money and ship goods to some address I just gave them.
  And behind the scenes, Amazon and other large retails have programs to combat detect fraud.
2. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by Jessta · 2008-12-16 15:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In Australia to get a bank account you have to provide 100 points of ID. So my bank knows who I am.
  Amazon is a company that provides a service, they don't care who you are as long as they get their money(eg. like a supermarket etc.).
  I imagine your clients would regret not having more information about your identity if they paid you and you failed to produce the work required.
  Online identity could be the same as physical identity if online services required you to actually provide some form of identification(eg. credit card number, copy of driver's license, etc.) although I've always been horrified at how little is required to prove one's identity and how much that identity gains you.
  If I received papers via Facebook I'd just ignore them, as there is not way anyone else could know whether I received them, or that the account was actually me.
  - Jesse McNelis
  
  --
  ...and that is all I have to say about that.
  http://jessta.id.au
3. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  what's so uncivil about money laundering?
  it's really backward and barbaric to forbid drug sale, gambling, pimping, and moving hard earned cash anywhere anonymously.
  Post Anonymously for obvious reason.
4. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by B4D+BE4T · 2008-12-16 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Most of my clients know me only via phone number, email address, or chat alias. I still produce work and they still pay me.
  I'm sure you have enough of their info to find them in case they ever fail to pay you for the work that you do. And I'm sure that they would have a fairly easy time finding you if they paid you and you failed to do the work promised (follow the money trail).
  
  My bank and my credit cards knows me by a made up user name. They still let me move my money around.
  If you're in the US, they have your SS number. They probably also have a lot of other info like address, phone number, birth certificate, etc. If by "made up user name" you mean your online banking username or your credit card/account number, these are all linked to that other info so they can find you if they need to.
  
  Amazon only knows me by a made up name and they trust me enough to take my money and ship goods to some address I just gave them.
  They take the money before they ship the goods. As long as they receive money before they release their goods, they are happy.
  The online presence becomes "real" when the owner must be found for legal purposes. A Facebook account obviously was not designed so that it could be traced to the owner/creator of the account. The author's point was that these anonymous accounts should not be allowed to be used for legal purposes.
5. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by osu-neko · 2008-12-16 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  The online presence becomes "real" when the owner must be found for legal purposes. ...
  To quote Vulcan metaphysics: nothing unreal exists.
  An online presence becomes real the moment it is created.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
6. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 18:06 · Score: 0
  
  seems controversial enough, no?
7. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by ArsenneLupin · 2008-12-16 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  If I received papers via Facebook I'd just ignore them, as there is not way anyone else could know whether I received them, or that the account was actually me.
  
  But what if the lawyers posted the papers to your wall, rather than your inbox? In that case, all your "friends" would know too, and if you weren't careful with whom you befriended on facebook, some might rat you out (confirming that (1) it was indeed you, and (2) that you logged on, which they know because you accepted that nice christmas ornament they sent you).
8. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you delete wall spam and you're quick enough, your friends will never see it. Or maybe you're among the vast majority of Facebook users and you don't allow non-friends to post on your wall.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
9. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by Cro+Magnon · 2008-12-17 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that much about Facebook since I'm too anti-social to join it, but I got the impression that the vast majority of Facebook users DID allow non-friends to post on their walls.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
10. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by clone53421 · 2008-12-17 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, I don't, and I didn't think most other people did either based on what I've seen – but then, maybe my personal experience isn't typical.
  
  --
  Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
11. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-17 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  Your second point is false.
  A bank only requires your SS number if they pay you more then 600 in interest a year. You CAN open a non interest checking account without a SS#.
12. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by B4D+BE4T · 2008-12-18 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Different definition of "real". Of course the account exists. I believe the OP meant "real" as in "recognized by the court".
13. Re: At what point isn't an online presence 'real'? by B4D+BE4T · 2008-12-18 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  This is not true. Every financial institution in the US must collect a SS number as part of its Customer Identification Program.
  
  According to provisions of the USA Patriot Act, all financial institutions must verify the identity of individuals wishing to conduct financial transactions.
  A SS number must be obtained as part of the Customer Identification Program.
  
  The CIP Rules establish the minimum identification information a financial institution must collect from you before opening a new account. Beyond this, financial institutions have flexibility to adopt CIP procedures appropriate to the business operations of each.
  Four data items are required for all new accounts. These are:
  * Name.
  * Date of birth (for an individual).
  * Address.
  * Identification number.
Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 15:20 · Score: 0

That's so Web 2.0.
Re:Poke! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 15:21 · Score: 0

OK, what's your address, I'll mail you the money!
Signed, not a process server...
Served implies received? by trimCoder · 2008-12-16 15:25 · Score: 1

I am interested in how they determine that it was received? If I have a facebook account but have not logged for 3 months then how can anyone claim receipt of the documents?
text of summons by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 15:34 · Score: 5, Funny

U R SERVED!! U lamers 2 appear B4 judge Dec 19 700 hrs re home loan U "forgot" 2 repay.
G'day.
possible by z-j-y · 2008-12-16 15:44 · Score: 1

we need cryptology based authentication, signature and receipt.
none of this OpenID or Facebook Connect crap. God damn it it has been 30 years since they solved the problem theoretically.
virtual identity crisis by blad3runn69 · 2008-12-16 15:54 · Score: 1

maybe they should look for them in habbo hotel. Serving papers through facebook is a joke. How can you be certain a) it is the person b) they ever see the notice. Fail. Also most social networking sites are evolving increased level of profile privacy so this method will be rendered redundant anyway.
He serves them on Facebook... then what? by superdave80 · 2008-12-16 16:20 · Score: 1

So the judge went for this whole stupid 'serve them over the interwebs' thing (idiot). Now what? What happens if they don't show up in court? Default judgment? What good is that if the guy can't find them in the first place? He still won't be able to collect on the default judgment. And even if they do find them, they will just say, "Papers? What papers? And what the heck is 'facebook'?
The judge should have put his foot down and said, "Find them, serve them, then come back into my court. Otherwise, you are just wasting everybody's time."
1. Re:He serves them on Facebook... then what? by harlows_monkeys · 2008-12-16 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  RTFA. (Hint: home loan).
2. Re:He serves them on Facebook... then what? by Chuck+Chunder · 2008-12-16 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  So the judge went for this whole stupid 'serve them over the interwebs' thing (idiot). Now what? What happens if they don't show up in court? Default judgment?
  Default judgement has already happened in this case, the papers that were eventually "delivered" via Facebook were ones informing them that the default judgement had been rendered against them.
  I suppose they could appeal this but that would probably require actually turning up in front of it which doesn't seem to be the way they work.
  
  --
  Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
3. Re:He serves them on Facebook... then what? by superdave80 · 2008-12-16 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Please enlighten us as to how 'home loan' will help find these people. THEY TRIED SERVING PAPERS TO THE HOME!!!
  FTFA
  
  Attorney Mark McCormack was assigned to the case and unsuccessfully attempted to contact the couple several times at their home,...
  I think it is hilarious that you thought you'd be cool by throwing a 'RTFA' at me, when you clearly didn't.
4. Re:He serves them on Facebook... then what? by superdave80 · 2008-12-16 18:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I didn't read the AFP link in the main article. But it makes me wonder: How were the first set of papers served to the couple to get the default judgment? And why would a second set of papers need to be served?
  And it still doesn't seem to matter. They served the couple two sets of papers, and they still can't find them. What happens now?
5. Re:He serves them on Facebook... then what? by jesterzog · 2008-12-16 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Actually in this case it sounds as if they're wasting the court's time and everybody else's money by intentionally making themselves difficult to find. At what point do you draw the line?
  Someone's owed a lot of money by this couple, and fair treatment of them shouldn't be overlooked, either.
6. Re:He serves them on Facebook... then what? by Chuck+Chunder · 2008-12-16 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  How were the first set of papers served to the couple to get the default judgment?
  At their house I imagine. I guess the first set of papers came as a bit of a surprise so they weren't in hiding at that time.
  
  And it still doesn't seem to matter. They served the couple two sets of papers, and they still can't find them. What happens now?
  Where the people are probably doesn't matter so much any more. Now the lien has been served the creditors can presumably move forwards and take possession of the house without needing any cooperation.
  I guess if the debt extends past the value of the house then there may be further need to pursue them individually but otherwise it's probably done and dusted.
  That said the last article I read said that the couple are back at the house now they have nothing to hide from so no doubt there will be some eviction shenanigans.
  You have to feel sorry for them to some extent, losing your house in you 60s can't be a barrel of laughs but hiding away isn't the way to deal with it.
  
  --
  Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
7. Re:He serves them on Facebook... then what? by Jedi+Alec · 2008-12-16 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  They'll no longer be able to hide behind the couch once it gets repossessed along with the house around it?
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
8. Re:He serves them on Facebook... then what? by harlows_monkeys · 2008-12-17 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  You wrote:
  
  Default judgment? What good is that if the guy can't find them in the first place? He still won't be able to collect on the default judgment
  The suit is over failure to pay off their home loan. Home loans are secured by the home itself. Once the creditor wins in court, he doesn't need to find the debtors in order to collect. He just needs to find the home.
habbo by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 16:36 · Score: 0

maybe they should look for them in habbo hotel. Serving papers through facebook is a joke. How can they be certain a) it is the person b) they ever see the notice. Fail. Also most social networking sites are evolving increased level of profile privacy so this method will be rendered redundant anyway. At least outlook has read receipt notification ;)
What advantage does the legal notice server get? by userw014 · 2008-12-16 16:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, what advantage does the server of the legal notice get from this? What is to prevent him from creating a false identity in order to advance the legal process towards confiscating the property? What is to prevent someone from filing a false claim against someone, using a falsely created set of identities to serve notice to?
Australian Debt Recovery anything goes by tg123 · 2008-12-16 16:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm surprised they even have lawyers in that colony of misfits.
Your not too far wrong sadly enough.
This story is really about australian debt recovery. In australia short of actual physical violence you use any tactic you like to recover debt.
You can even make threaten violence and scare the sh*t out of someone to get your money and the court will let you get away with it.
this is a link to a few who got fined. NOTE: ONLY FINED
http://www.fairtrading.qld.gov.au/OFT/OFTWeb.nsf/Web+Pages/3C3C486D9B068FDF4A256FDC007E3CB5?OpenDocument&L1=News
1. Re:Australian Debt Recovery anything goes by digitalchinky · 2008-12-16 18:46 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  While I understand this is the usual mode of operation for debt collectors (from personal experience), they are actually very strictly bound to various legal codes, including codes of conduct. They violate them often at their own peril. They routinely end up in the courts for this activity, the problem is that for every agency that goes under for harassment, there are 30 more in the queue lining up to take over.
  * a little bit unrelated to your post *
  It's a pretty sleazy industry, if you're at the wrong end of one of their phone calls, simply tell them you will only communicate via the written word, and that you wont hesitate to go to the ACCC (And numerous other watchdogs) if they fail to abide by your directive to do so. Don't be afraid to do this either, you might be in debt, but you still have rights - and most of us do actually like to keep some shred of dignity about us, even in our worst moments.
  Believe me, these bastards wont hesitate to tell everyone all about your financial situation, including your boss, your friends, family, their aim is to cause embarrassment and get a quick settlement - they get a cut of this, so it's in their interest to do it fast.
  If you are in debt and really can't pay at their stupid rates, then you are actually better off going to court and discussing your options with a judge. They are far more understanding, compassionate, and willing to intervene so you can continue to live your life.
  Back on topic, there have been other precedents to inform people of such things via the internet, it is rare, but it happens. I live in Asia now, it's even worse here, if they can't find you the law says they have to publish the details in a paper of general circulation - some of it is amusing to read, but mostly it's just sad.
2. Re:Australian Debt Recovery anything goes by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 19:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's a pretty sleazy industry
  It is a very sleazy industry. I just had issue a month ago with a phone company when I cancelled my account. They never issued a final bill; instead referring the matter straight to their preferred debt collector. Funny that the debt collector had the correct address but the phone company swears black and blue that they never had my correct address.
  I ended up on the wrong end of the phone trying to get a bill out of the debt collector. Spent nearly 6 hours being transferred around and around on a few different phone calls. Their whole attitude was 'if you'd paid the bill you wouldn't be in this mess, so pay the bill" to which I continued to reply "If I'd been sent a bill it would have been paid". That went around in circles.
  To top it all off, the bill would have actually been due about now, so the debt collector was unnecessary.
  Eventually I had to go to the relevant industry associations to get anywhere. Said phone company still hasn't actually sent me a correct bill (no it's not T$ for once), won't communicate with me and won't compensate me for the almost whole business day of lost income because I was trying to deal with their incompetence.
3. Re:Australian Debt Recovery anything goes by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  I'm surprised they even have lawyers in that colony of misfits.
  
  Your not too far wrong sadly enough.
  Yea, unfortunately, the majority of the mods apparently suffer from dementia ( http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/15/1629245 )
  It was also an obvious stab at lawyers being the worst crooks.
4. Re:Australian Debt Recovery anything goes by tg123 · 2008-12-17 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised they even have lawyers in that colony of misfits.
  Your not too far wrong sadly enough.
  ......It was also an obvious stab at lawyers being the worst crooks.
  he he he ha ha ha
  Must have have gone straight over my head . (whoosh) happens when things are that obvious.
  Glad people like yourself are here to put these things out.
5. Re:Australian Debt Recovery anything goes by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-17 00:50 · Score: 0
  
  What kind of an idiot would accept a loan with a 210% interest rate?
6. Re:Australian Debt Recovery anything goes by tg123 · 2008-12-17 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of an idiot would accept a loan with a 210% interest rate?
  Desperate
7. Re:Australian Debt Recovery anything goes by iosq · 2008-12-17 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Wow... quoting from parent's link, "The biggest fish caught by OFT was another Gold Coast loan shark, Timothy John Ward and his company Shark Financial Services Pty Ltd.".... I am amazed anyone would borrow money from a company with a name like that, or that any loan shark would set up a company with such a blatant name...
8. Re:Australian Debt Recovery anything goes by db10 · 2008-12-18 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Ridiculous! now 200%, sure, but 210%? I'm outraged.
No worries. by sootman · 2008-12-16 16:50 · Score: 5, Funny

They can just pay back the loan with WoW gold.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
1. Re:No worries. by shutdown+-p+now · 2008-12-17 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  And if they don't have enough, they'll be sentenced to farming until they can repay?
.....no way.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 16:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

This can not be happening.....this is just opening the doorway to huge scams and total bullshit...if we cant escape the real world for just a bit to chat to friends and relax then we are totally controlled by the laws....we will never have a time to ourself's if we are getting stalked by financial institutions in our private friendly place.
Just fuck off!
LEGAL PAPERS--OPEN ATTACHMENT IMMEDIATELY by Skapare · 2008-12-16 18:26 · Score: 1

Would YOU even read email with a subject line like that? I've deleted spam like that three times without ever reading it.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
1. Re:LEGAL PAPERS--OPEN ATTACHMENT IMMEDIATELY by Dan541 · 2008-12-16 23:39 · Score: 1
  
  I once got a cease and desist notice served to me via email.
  How else where they supposed to serve it? I don't have a public phone number, not that I even answer it half the time, no fax and I certainly don't check the PO Box my domains are registered to. When my PO Box gets full of crap every 3-4years the post office deliver it all to the door I then deliver it straight to the trash.
  Serious notices should be served in person, email can take everything else, only fines arrive via snail mail these days.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
2. Re:LEGAL PAPERS--OPEN ATTACHMENT IMMEDIATELY by Golddess · 2008-12-17 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I once got a cease and desist notice served to me via email.
  How else where they supposed to serve it?
  
  Serious notices should be served in person
  You just answered your own question. They could serve it to you next time you did whatever it was they wanted you to stop. If they don't like it, tough. The internet is not some magical device where if someone wants someone else to stop doing something, you click a button and forget about it.
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
As Stan Would Say by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 18:30 · Score: 0

"Dude! That's pretty fucked up right there"
It's in the article by jesterzog · 2008-12-16 18:49 · Score: 2, Informative

How does he know that the person is infact the one he wants? It could be someone registering with a false name.
From the article: "McCormack argued that he knew he found the right people online because they listed their birth dates, full names, and they had listed each other as friends, according to the AFP. This was apparently enough to convince the judge, who said that McCormack could serve the couple Facebook papers as long as he also left them at their last known address and also via e-mail.
Obviously it depends on context, but on a case-by-case basis it's usually possible to tell if you can be reasonably certain if it's the right person or not. Sometimes judges can be ignorant of certain domains but most judges tend not to be as stupid as many people on Slashdot claim they are, and they know a lot about the law and how it applies. You can't be absolutely certain that a Facebook profile is the person you want and you can't be sure that the profile's inbox is being monitored by the associated user, but you might also ask how you know for certain that you're handing documents to the correct person rather than a lookalike, or someone falsely claiming to be them. At some point you just have to draw the line of what's reasonable, or the system falls apart. Once you've passed a certain point of reasonable doubt and things have progressed, I think it's fair to leave it up to the other person to prove why that they couldn't have been aware of the papers.
Having a reasonable excuse for not being able to be contacted is one thing, but personally I think if people go to ridiculous lengths to avoid being served with legal papers, they shouldn't be given much sympathy. If you're covering your ears and singing to yourself specifically so you can avoid hearing someone giving you bad news, it's really your own fault if things move on and decisions are made without you being present. Someone else is owed lots of money here, and they deserve a fair hearing, too.
ACT specifics by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-16 18:52 · Score: 0

From a mailing list I frequent (EFA privacy/censorship):

The default judgement had already been won, the difference is that whereas elsewhere that would be the end of it, in the ACT notice of the default judgement has to be served (elsewhere you find out when the sheriff and locksmith show up). Because this is ACT specific and has a lower burden of formality, they have permitted Facebook be used to serve notice.
You got served by riker1384 · 2008-12-16 20:57 · Score: 1

Do they still allow papers to be served by way of a dance-off?
Who would believe it. by RationalRoot · 2008-12-16 21:30 · Score: 1

Who would believe it. If I received a summons by email or on facebook (Iana Member) I would just assume it was another POS spam. I doubt I would even read it. Seriously, I'd have my solicitor show the Judge the 500+ spam messages in my spam box last week and ask him if he really expected me to be able to attach any credibility to the online summons. Then I'd show him how easy it was to make fake ones with fake from addresses and ask him again. If online summons are valid. That's a simple way around spam filters. Once someone does not get a summons because the spam filter blocks it, there will be a big fuss and spam filters will allow anything that looks like a summons. Then spam will start looking like summonses (sp?) D

--
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
Luxtrust... by ArsenneLupin · 2008-12-16 21:38 · Score: 1

Here in Luxembourg, Luxtrust likes to give technical support via Facebook and other chat sites, even when the original request was submitted via e-mail.
But I've got the impression that they do it for exactly the opposite reason: because such replies do not create a legal liability.
Moral of the story by AlanS2002 · 2008-12-16 22:13 · Score: 1

Make use of privacy settings on social networking sites. You never know who could be using peoples profiles (when the whole world can look at your full profile) for what purposes. It could be recruitment firms doing background checks, PIs looking into your activities, spammers harvesting email addresses, etc.

--
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Related links by AlanS2002 · 2008-12-16 22:17 · Score: 1

http://news.smh.com.au/technology/australia-oks-facebook-for-serving-lien-notice-20081216-6zva.html
http://news.smh.com.au/technology/facebook-used-to-find-defendants-in-australian-court-case-20081216-6zog.html
http://news.smh.com.au/national/facebook-used-to-track-down-debtors-20081216-6zgt.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/lawyers-to-serve-notices-on-facebook/2008/12/16/1229189579001.html

--
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
wait by GregNorc · 2008-12-17 01:35 · Score: 1

I thought part of the reason for process servers was to provide undeniable proof the person was aware they were being served (IE they can testify in court they handed the papers to them).
When serving via Facebook, how can you prove they got the message? There could be an error sending it. The person could think it's spam and delete it without opening it. Or they could simply not log in - some people rarely log into their facebook.
Our online presence by hesaigo999ca · 2008-12-17 02:05 · Score: 1

The problem stems from people trying to avoid what they should own up to....and when the lawyer saw "activity" on facebook, he knew he could legally server them this way, because they were purposefully avoiding being found. This I applause, not only did this show insight on the lawyer's part for knowing social networking on a computer, but also a show of the times changing. I tend to agree, if the presence is online, it is as real as in person , unless the facebook was someone else's account.
ie - if i have an acount called xyz...and you "think" it is john doe, you would have to prove beyond a doubt the link between username and person, else you would breach a disclosure law, about giving away personal information to someone else, without verifying it was who it was supposed to be.
WAT by mfh · 2008-12-17 06:16 · Score: 1

Wow gold is too valuable. Pay them back with fish fingers that look like Jesus.
Yet seriously for a second... why would anyone take anything seriously they received on Facebook? I'd be like:
tl;dr GTFO, KTHXBYE!
We run into a danger here that if a court can uphold what someone sends electronically through a third party system, that strengthens the toehold spammers have. Now I have to read everything that says URGENT YOU MUST READ!
YEAH RIGHT!!! :P also... tl;dr GTFO, KTHXBYE!

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Troll? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · 2008-12-17 09:26 · Score: 1

Hardly. This story seems far too absurd to be true. I'm quite serious! If they were trying to prove a point though, they did so admirably.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'll bet this is Optus. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-12-17 10:51 · Score: 0

I've had them send me overdue notices before sending the actual bill. Despite multiple phone calls and notes on the account they continued to do this until one finally went overdue enough for them to refer me to their debt collectors.
Tack on an extra "enforcement fee" for a bill I never received with essentially no option to dispute it led to canceling my account rather quickly.
Posting Anonymously, because paranoia.
Re:What advantage does the legal notice server get by Eth1csGrad1ent · 2008-12-17 10:57 · Score: 1

In this particular case, a default judgement in their favour.