Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Private Info Increasingly Used In Court

Orome1 writes "Making the content of your Facebook account private can thwart the social network's plan to share as much information as possible with advertisers, but may not keep out lawyers looking for material that will contradict your statements in a court of law. US lawyers have been trying to gain permission to access the private parts of social network accounts for a while now, but it seems that only lately they have begun to be successful in their attempts. And this turn of events is another perfectly good reason to think twice about what you post online."

33 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Facebook alternatives? by sageres · · Score: 2

    A few weeks ago, after finding out that some big economic and political heavyweights invested in Facebook, I decided to cancel my account. Two weeks after I filed the request, I finally no longer have it. It seems to me that Facebook itself rose to prominence after MySpace became overpopulated and polluted with spam. It was a good social network for educational sources, but now -- it has become conglomerate of something that it does not even deserve to be. Facebook has become too mainstream, its login service is used by many websites and the private lives and information of people is willingly compromised. So, would anyone recommend a small but dedicated social network alternative that I could try and recommend to my friends. It must have a strong privacy emphasis, anti-spam features and simplicity.

    1. Re:Facebook alternatives? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Or you could just be antisocial like the rest of us.

      Sheesh. Kids these days.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. Why shouldn't it? by Fibe-Piper · · Score: 2

    The crap people say about themselves online is ridiculous.

    People without sense to moderate themselves will no doubt end up paying for it one way or the other. Talk about your hard partying lifestyle all the time and get a divorce, or charged with drunk driving, or dismissed from a job... good luck keeping that to yourself at that point

    --
    I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
    1. Re:Why shouldn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The crap people say about themselves online is ridiculous.

      People without sense to moderate themselves will no doubt end up paying for it one way or the other. Talk about your hard partying lifestyle all the time and get a divorce, or charged with drunk driving, or dismissed from a job... good luck keeping that to yourself at that point

      Hell yeah. Fuck those party people. How dare they live a life that is not perfectly whitewashed and 100% compatible with a Puritannical lifestyle. They deserve to suffer for that! They deserve to suffer even when they acted like responsible adults and only had their fun when they knew it would not interfere with any of their obligations or responsibilities. The nerve of those people, doing things with their own lives that maybe I wouldn't do with my own life.

      I've decided that this offends me, and as we all know, that gives me the right to demand that they either change their ways or suffer. After all, the person who takes offense is never the one who needs to change, no, not even when they actively sought out the things which offend them. Having cleared that up... get a divorce you say? Clearly anyone who would ever want privacy from the outside world for any reason didn't deserve to be married. Charged with drunk driving? They obviously had no business having a license in the first place. Dismissed from a job? Well then, no matter the quantity or quality of their work, no matter how professional they were, no matter how well they separated their private life from their work life, they are clearly riff-raff and it's an excellent business decision to get rid of them. Fools.

      In fact, I think everyone needs to have their every waking moment scrutinized and archived by strangers. That'll teach them to be perfect and above reproach and nothing could possibly go wrong. Maybe the 1984 style telescreens can be handy for this.

      The crap people say about themselves online is not really so different from what they say offline. It's just that when they say such things offline, in person, they usually aren't recording and broadcasting their speech. Now that they are using a medium that both records and makes available ... well, now the vultures swoop down to see if they can find anyone who's out of line. It's the same lovers of gossip who have always existed, just on a newer medium. Like that Sublime lyric, "insufferable informer crazy fools, wait with their fingers crossed for you to break the rules."

      Otherwise people have always been a little deviant. It's just that they used to understand discretion.

    2. Re:Why shouldn't it? by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      Here's the real question: Why would any judge allow anything from a website that isn't provably from the person it claims to be from?

      It's trivial for Lawyer X to set up an account purporting to be Claimant X. He could then say all sorts of things about how fun it's going to be to defraud Company X, or how Claimant X loves to get stoned, or whatever. Even vacation photos can be lifted from some other site, like flickr, and the EXIF data can be changed to make it look like the claimant was enjoying a nice vacation after allegedly getting paralyzed in an accident, or whatever.

      This cuts both ways of course. It would also be trivial for Claimant X to have two accounts and keep one of them chock full of "Woe is me" blog posts that are "private" but accessible. Then when the judge gets to read the "private" data, it just reinforces the notion that the claimant was wronged by Company X. A separate, more private, account for real friends and family would be reasonably easy to keep off the radar, if you plan far enough in advance. Surely there are people who have done so.

  3. Only lately have they been successful? Uh, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Facebook has always honored valid subpoenas, and lawyers have always been able to get them for this kind of info.
    It's more that only now have lawyers started to catch up to the idea that it's a good source of info.

    Look at the history of presentations at lawyer conferences, and you will see in the past year or so talks on what info you can gain from social network accounts, and e-discovery type stuff have started happening more and more.

    So basically, it was just because lawyers are generally close to grandparents when it comes to the technology knowledge curve

  4. Is this surprising? by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 2

    I don't think this is surprising. I would have figured a court order would make Facebook give up your data to the court.

    --
    SSC
  5. If it's germain, why not? by LaminatorX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Subpoenas for all sorts of physical records and correspondence are par for the course. How is this any different than a subpoena for your diary or letters?

    1. Re:If it's germain, why not? by chemicaldave · · Score: 2

      Are the lawyers mining this data and then asking the court for permission? That seems wrong.
      Or are they asking the courts for permission first? That seems completely acceptable.

    2. Re:If it's germain, why not? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 3, Informative

      The latter. This story is about defense lawyers asking for a subpoena from a judge during civil cases to prove the plaintiffs are lying or exaggerating.

    3. Re:If it's germain, why not? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      I was wondering how that works - how can the judge "make the plaintiff" do anything? If there's a penalty for refusing, doesn't that make the whole "consent" invalid? (As in, signed under duress)?

      The judge cannot make the plaintiff do anything. However, if in a civil case one side asks for information that is relevant to the case, and the other side refuses to give that information, then the judge is required by law that the information would be evidence against the person who refuses to give the information.

      Say the defendant (maybe an insurance company) says "we were informed that the plaintiff was an a skiing trip two days after allegedly breaking both legs while slipping over a banana skin that our client allegedly left on the sidewalk. We want to see all holiday photos that the plaintiff put on facebook after the alleged accident". If the plaintiff refuses to hand the photos over, the judge is required by law to assume the plaintiff is hiding the fact that his legs were just fine.

  6. In my client's defence, your honour... by Vernes · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...in his Facebook profile, my client clearly states that his shlong is 20 inch long and always ready for action. This would make it impossible to be the person seen, and I quote: "running away from the heist carrying the stolen device". His anatomy would not allow rapid locomotion as witnessed, your Honour.

    1. Re:In my client's defence, your honour... by Escape+From+NY · · Score: 2

      If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests

    2. Re:In my client's defence, your honour... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Prosecutor's rebuttal: "I know from personal experience that that condition doesn't hinder running in the least."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:In my client's defence, your honour... by zm · · Score: 2

      Ladies of the jury: "we'd like to see a proof of that in a demonstration"

      --
      Sig ?
  7. It is called discovery and subpoena. by davev2.0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    When one is involved in a court case, there is discovery where each party is allowed to investigate and examine the other party, including the other party's private documents such as diaries, for evidence. The court can issue a subpoena for said private documents. Facebook and other social networking sites fall under "private documents".

    I have no idea why everyone is surprised at this. It has been like this literally for centuries.

    1. Re:It is called discovery and subpoena. by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      It's private if you aren't my friend and I only allow friends to see.

      And what is it if your friends decide to let the world see?

      That's why Facebook privacy is non-existent - even if you make your profile friends only, news and other things can spread quite easily as people re-post news and photos and such. Post something big like getting married or having a baby and you'll find your news has spread to people 3 connections away simply as people spread the news far and wide.

      Even innocent news like going on vacation gets spread inadvertently - "Can't wait for spring break - Hawaii here I come!" turns into "OMG, I can't believe Xxxxx is going to Hawaii for spring break! He's so lucky!" by one of your friend's wall posts (which may not be private).

      And photos too - all it takes is a friend of a friend asking to see some photos you posted...

  8. Re:Dupe? by gfreeman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, but it's Groundhog Day.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  9. Re:Dupe? by gfreeman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, but it's Groundhog Day.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  10. It doesn’t necessarily mean that its the tru by kaptink · · Score: 3, Informative

    It doesn’t necessarily mean that anything you put on facebook is factual or true. Its not like your facebook page is a legal declaration of the truth. You could I assume argue that whatever they find or claim was just made up. As long as you don’t claim to not know someone in your friend list that you added yourself. I don’t think you can tell who added who anyway.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
  11. BREAKING NEWS by joeszilagyi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Posting unencrypted data on 3rd party corporate services exposes them to legal requirements! We never saw that coming!

    --
    Dude, where's my packet?
  12. Re:Is it truly so hard? by icebraining · · Score: 2

    That doesn't prove you haven't lied. It just means Facebook has a reason to ban you.

  13. Facebook has no interest in protecting you by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Informative
    Users of Facebook are not its customers, they are its product. FB sells data about them to advertisers. So once a court order/subpoena has been received, it will act to limit damage to itself. That means full compliance and cooperation with the suing attorney. "Here are the keys, look as much as you want, Copy anything, don't bother us" would be its response.

    But now a days there are so many companies providing host space, offline storage and backup, on line collaboration tools, even project planning tools on line. Many small businesses are using google cloud or microsoft office live cloud services. Now if some such small company is sued, and the lawyers ask for all documents saved in Microsoft Office Live servers with a proper subpoena would MS refuse? Would MS try to limit the discovery process to relevant documents? Would they do everything in the best interest of the defendant or in the best interest of the hosting company alone?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  14. facebook is a liar's worst enemy by goffster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My mom is a family law attorney and uses facebook to consistently tear down
    the defenses of liars on the witness stand.

    1. Re:facebook is a liar's worst enemy by goffster · · Score: 2

      If someone says one thing on Facebook, and another thing on court, then they are lying.
      We simply don't know which. Usually, you can figure it out.

  15. Re:Think harder by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    and there is no justification for oppression, including stupidity

    Yes there is. Society cannot function with too many stupid people. They need to be oppressed and suppressed. That's how we get awesome laws like Obama Care, we're too stupid to do it ourselves, we need to be forced into doing what is smart. /sarcasm

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  16. Keep it simple by pat_trick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't get a facebook account. I don't have one and never intend to.

    1. Re:Keep it simple by svendsen · · Score: 2

      I understand what you are saying but it can be helpful. In my example I need to get military clearance. I have to list every placed I have ever lived and a reference for each place. If it weren't for face book I would have no clue how to contact a lot of these people from many years ago.

      But I don't post, don't have my real pic up, locked it down from people seeing anything and just use it to remain in touch.

  17. Re:Is it truly so hard? by bws111 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First, these are civil cases, not criminal. There is no prosecutor and there is no guilty/not guilty.

    Second, it is the DEFENSE that is using FB as evidence that the plaintiff is lying.

    So, let's say I sue you for $10M because I fell on your property, and I claim I am stuck in bed 24x7 and can't enjoy life at all. Are you really going to say that you wouldn't use pictures I posted on Facebook of me dancing at a party as evidence that my life is not as bad as I am claiming?

  18. Re:It doesn’t necessarily mean that its the by businessnerd · · Score: 2

    The things that courts will be interested in are not necessarily the the profile information or the friend list as a whole. They will be more interested in your activity. Whose wall do you post on frequently? Who have you been chatting with, and what about? If you use any location based services with a tie in to facebook, they can tell where you were or weren't at a given time. While you may be able to create some misleading information by having fake conversations and have other people use your account from your house while you're out robbing a bank, this would show a much higher level of sophistication. In fact, I would guess that any criminal sophisticated enough to go through the trouble of staging their facebook account would be sophisticated enough to not use facebook at all for fear that their profile could be used against them in court. I recently watched "The Facebook Obsession" on CNBC and they talked about how police departments are increasingly using Facebook to locate and bring in suspects. It has proven to be very effective, and that is without the need for a subpoena. This is all information that is publicly available. Again, any fugitive worth their salt would cut off all communication, change behavior patterns, and get out of Dodge; thus, negating any benefit to checking their facebook profile.

    --
    "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
  19. Re:Is it truly so hard? by icebike · · Score: 2

    I would still demand eyewitness testimony.

    Which wouldn't be too hard to get since your friends would also be in that photo, or mentioned in that post. And how hard would it be to find your friends since you plastered them all over facebook?

    The rules of evidence are much less restrictive in civil court than in criminal court.
    Chances are if you were caught in a lie like this you would not be demanding eyewitness testimony, because you would have to purger yourself to deny the photo was real, or to even claim it was photoshopped.

    Adding lie upon lie in court is seldom a winning strategy.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  20. Re:Is it truly so hard? by PReDiToR · · Score: 2

    This website, "Facebook.com", is sometimes datamined by lawyers for information to hold against people in legal situations. This can be legal. It is sometimes facilitated by Facebook or through wiretapping/bugging of computers and/or phones.

    I would like to make a declaration of fact to the effect that any and or all information contained in my Facebook Profile could be inaccurate, either on purpose or by accident or omission.

    I sometimes exaggerate times, I have been known to make up events that I then pretended to attend and I deny being at events that I did in reality attend. Reasons for this are many and varied and my own business.

    I may or may not use my real name, date of birth, family details or my real physical address.

    This Facebook Profile is not a journal, diary, log nor record of my life and should not be taken to be accurate or true for any reason.

    If anyone were to attempt to use information from this, my Facebook Profile, in a Court of Law I could in all good conscience hold my hand up on penalty of Perjury and deny actions that may appear to be truth if evidence for them was garnered in full or in part from this Facebook Profile.

    This does not preclude the possibility that some events and statements are true.

    This statement may or may not carry legal weight, and to the best of my knowledge has never been used as a defence in Court, but it stands as truth and if necessary I will swear under oath that I stand by the spirit of it.

    I'm seriously considering putting this as a note on my profile.
    Might get me out of a sticky situation if I ever get faced with this crap.

    --

    Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  21. Re:Is it truly so hard? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Seriously. If this is all it takes to send someone to jail, a few people I know should change their passwords soon. Else I'll have them jailed if I so please.

    Now, I'm (usually) a law abiding person, so the chances of me using this are fairly low. But if this becomes the fast pass for a verdict, it becomes trivial for criminals to frame others for their crimes. You need your mark's passwords (more trivial to get than one should assume, at least with the average person out there) and some skill in Photoshop. Hell, some creative writing suffices it seems.

    Malware writers usually get a ton of passwords during their operations. Mostly, they are currently phishing for ebay, paypal and similar pages. If this becomes the standard procedure, we have another venue for them. Need someone arrested? Search no longer, we'll make sure the courts work for YOU.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.