Australian Court Lets Lawyer Serve Papers Via Facebook

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?"

Comments

But....

[arthurpaliden]

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.

Re:But....

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:But....

[spazdor]

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.

Re:But....

[hairyfeet]

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?

Re:But....

[z-j-y]

some time traveler screwed it up.

Re:But....

[QuantumRiff]

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...

Re:But....

[mr_matticus]

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.

Re:But....

[riprjak]

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.

Re:But....

[T Murphy]

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!

Re:But....

[szquirrel]

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...

Wait, via Facebook?

[strredwolf]

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

Facebook no different to email.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:Facebook no different to email.

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Facebook no different to email.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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

Re:WTF -- this is OLD news

[hardcorejon]

ah, if only there were a "troll but true" comment rating.

At what point isn't an online presence 'real'?

[Zadaz]

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.

text of summons

[Anonymous Coward]

U R SERVED!! U lamers 2 appear B4 judge Dec 19 700 hrs re home loan U "forgot" 2 repay.

G'day.

Re:This could be used for

[jamesh]

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.

Australian Debt Recovery anything goes

[tg123]

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

Re:Australian Debt Recovery anything goes

[digitalchinky]

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.

No worries.

[sootman]

They can just pay back the loan with WoW gold.