Slashdot Mirror
Judge Demands Email and Facebook Passwords From Women In Sexual Harassment Case
An anonymous reader writes "Back in September, a U.S. judge ruled that a school district violated the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) rights of a 12-year-old student by forcing her to hand over her Facebook password to school officials who in turn used it to search for messages they deemed inappropriate. This month, another U.S. judge has ordered that women suing their employer for sexual harassment must hand over cell phones, passwords to their email accounts, blogs, as well as to Facebook and other social networks."
...not as I do!
Ask the Judge to attach Facebook to the case.
Facebook should be able to oppose this in court.
I propose /. split into two sites, one featuring litigation and the other focuses on news for nerds.
A judge is perfectly permitted to require the defense access to potentially usable evidence given probable cause that the evidence is there. School officials, on the other hand, are not judges or part of the legal system.
Complete non-story by some muckraker. Naturally, /. posts it.
We'e seen a few stories recently like this, where a judge has demanded someone to turn over information that they've already agreed not to in a TOS.
Was this ever resolved, whether a judge can order you to violate a TOS? Either it's legally binding or it's not. Not variable on who's asking or whether or not it's convenient. They need to make up their minds.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
whats the worst they could do. Move over whats the worst she could have done.
I used to think that schools were to keep children busy so parents could go to work, now I think it keeps a special kind of bastard dictator type where they can do little harm, oh and keep children busy so the parents can go to work.
So a woman claims sexual harassment, states that all the evidence is on her phone, email and facebook, and we're supposed to be outraged that the judge wants the evidence?
Yes, I checked the linked articles to make sure, downmod me for that, but without providing this information the accuser has no case whatsoever.
I'm impressed that the judge actually wants the evidence, most of the lawsuits that get to Slashdot seem to show judges who ignore all evidence and go with whatever lawyer has the prettiest tie that day.
Even if the sexual harassment suit doesn't involve these forms of communication? Or could be verified by other means?
That's the equivalent of saying that they need to allow the defense attorneys to search their home and make copies of all their personal documents.
OTOH, seems as though a woman with a solid case for sexual harassment that does involve electronic communications would want to submit these all their electronic records to help the case (although not the passwords).
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
When you think about it, instead of having the obligatory knee-jerk reaction, this makes sense on the judge's part.
Basically, was the woman leading the boss on? If there's facebook messages and texts of her leading the guy on, or even starting the whole thing, then the tables kinda turn. Course, in that case BOTH of them should be fired for this, since it's a horrendous conflict of interest.
But without evidence, a girl can just say "Yo, he sexually harassed me", and of course being a guy, he will have absolutely zero way to claim innocence, even if she's lying outright about everything.
And I think it's a matter of common sense that in either of the above things, the guy will have to surrender the exact same information to the judge. If neither submit evidence, and there's no witnesses, then it's a he-said, she-said situation, and can be thrown handily out of court.
I also wish the article itself wasn't blocked at my work, so that I could actually verify if any of the above even applies.
The plaintiff was allegedly using facebook to make statements about the case and other events relevant to the case.
Facebook should have a secondary READ ONLY password that can be voided after say 7 days
or Facebook should simply give the court a dump of the required info
btw whats with them needing the actual hardware since the phones themselves should not have the needed data anymore
(i could see asking for the NUMBERS but not the hardware)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Good call! People put everything on facebook, I wouldn't be surprised for the clinch pin to be on the facebook wall or in a facebook message.
Some conversations should be private because of the feelings and emotions that can arise from having them made public. The idea that every aspect of all our lives should be open to the entire world seems silly. Sadly anything you put on the internet can and most likely will be made public either through people leaking it, the laws demanding it or lacked IT security letting it slip through the cracks. It is important to teach our kids that what they say online will last forever and will follow them for the rest of their lives.
There is a BIG difference between a judge ordering someone to disclose their facebook password to collect evidence and a school teacher or principal doing it. Also, the person in question here is the plaintiff. The defense generally does have a lot of latitude when it comes to evidence collection. My only complaint here is that the plaintiff's sexual behavior outside of work should not be relevant or admissible, but it looks like from some of the statements that the defense is going to push to get that stuff admitted. The judge should put pretty strict criteria on what evidence may be collected and presented to the jury. We aren't really getting those details here, though.
Were these women sexually harassed on FaceBook ?
If not it has nothing to do with the case.
Anyway I know FB has a policy of "you are not allowed to give your password to others"
So they should have a hotline or email or web page for reporting "I am being forced to give my password to (employer | school | court | government agency | religious authority)" before handing it over, so FB can disable access to the account.
subpoena Facebook and all the other relevant parties?
Fuck you and your terrorism fear mongering. Seriously, just fuck you. People like you are a far bigger threat to our freedom than any terrorist.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
As a first step we should demand "read only" access passwords from our service providers. Almost all the accounts, from trivial throwaway email accounts to brokerage/mutual fund accounts holding hundreds of thousands of dollars offer just one level of access. Either you get full access to do anything you damn well please, or nothing. If we have a "valet key" access with limited privileges at least we can be sure these cops or judges won't be able to mess it up.
Other benefits include third party services that can watch for bills being posted, bills being paid on trime, or do investment portfolio analysis etc. E-Trade used to have something similar. They had a regular password and then a second "trading password" to invoke non-const member functions like ordering funds transfer or to buy/sell securities. But, sadly, they took it away.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Wow, you are so wrong I don't even know where to begin :(
Do a search on why Europe has privacy laws and start from there, you got close to a 100 years of history to learn from.
No, you will PRETEND my motivations are not honest. Which will make you a liar.
I imagine they're looking for something like a private FB/email message to a friend planning what false story they're going to tell.
What part of the constitution does this violate? And do you know what a warrant is or how it is issue?
I suppose this is going to be the new normal when it comes to the discovery phases of court cases like this. It's an odd approach, I wonder why he just didn't subpoena the various services themselves for the information. Maybe it would have taken too much time I guess?
That being said, the comparison of the 12-year old being forced by school officials to provide her passwords and the case of this woman is fallacious. In a court of law, in particular with cases involving defamation and harassment, a judge can, and often does, force you to provide things that would otherwise be private if it's deemed relevant to the case (and given the circumstances in this case, it most certainly is).
Does the fact that the judge ordered for this disclosure require Facebook not to close the account when the account holder violates their terms of service?
If Facebook does close the account does the account holder have any recourse to get the account reinstated? Does the judge?
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. This is pretty clearly unreasonable. Normally when you have a situation like this, you go to a computer forensics company and get them to sift through the dataset for data that is relevant. They get a copy of the data, not access to the original data. This way, the worst that can happen is that they violate your privacy. The search is done according to instructions given by the judge, and only matches are provided to the opposing council.
Letting opposing council, or even a forensics company, have the password to your personal accounts is very, very different. If they are corrupt, they can modify the evidence. Additionally, if sexual harassment was in fact occurring, the harasser may well use the access to perpetrate further harassment once the case is decided.
So no, sorry, the judge is way, way wrong here. The subpoena should have gone to Facebook, not to the plaintiff.
Go ahead and post your social security number.
And your mother's maden name
And your date of birth
You have nothing to hide? Prove it.
Yeah, right.
Says the person who's world view has been shaped by 60 years of relative peace and stable governments for a few privileged countries in the west. Your ignorance of history is nearly as appalling as your lack of foresight - governments can change, and literally overnight. Handing your information over to a benevolent government today may means it lands in the hands of a tyranny today.
Seriously, you're an idiot. I cling to the hope that you represent a very small minority.
What do you do if you sue someone and DON'T have a social networking page. Will your case get thrown out for not providing what you don't have? We already see this with job interviews. How many people were not accepted for a job because they wouldn't or couldn't provide a Facebook password? I don't use ANY social networking sites with the exception of Linkedin. Do you think they would believe me if I said I don't have one? It should be the decision of the plaintiffs to provide that information as evidence, not the position of the judge to order private information.
The 12-year-old was a different case entirely.
I don't think they do those, but IANAL. Maybe I'm wrong but my reading of (e.g.) Wikipedia's article on the 4th amendment to the US constitution, is that judges won't issue warrants to search someone's house unless there is probable cause of evidence of CRIME. This civil case under discussion doesn't involve criminal charges as far as I know. The evidentiary standards and the rules of procedure for civil and criminal cases are completely different from each other. In a civil case you get to issue subpoenas saying "give me all your documents related to such and so", with sanctions if it's shown that you held something back, but they don't get to search your house.
TLDR: search warrant = criminal case. Civil case gets subpoena, not search warrant. Search nazi says: "no search for you!
Really terrorism isn't a big deal. I'll take my freedoms back and assume the small small small small risk that terrorists are going to hurt me or someone I care about. There was already a higher probability of being hurt by my own government despite being innocent of a crime than there ever was of being hurt by terrorists. Now thanks to billions of dollars and thousands of lives wasted we get to enjoy a greater risk of both harm by terrorists and a greater risk of harm by our own government.
I've heard that we'd be wusses for just letting them get away with it but seeing as how we had been having good luck whooping the crap out of them for decades with special warfare types, I'd have thought we would have looked pretty tough if we didn't cry like babies about 9-11 and just carried on business as usual. Really how are terrorists now such a big threat that we need more law enforcement and intelligence resources to deal with them now than we did contending with the USSR and it's sponsored terrorists and the smattering of various groups and people who haven't liked us at any given time?
You really feel that you have no right to privacy? Prove it. Install web cams in all your bathrooms and bedrooms. Post the link here along with all of your bank account infomation, credit cards, etc.
If that's the kind of world you want to live in, check out "We" by Zamyatin.
Feelings ARE emotions.
This and similar events may help teach people that nothing they put on services like Facebook or Google is private.
People like you are a far bigger threat to our freedom than any terrorist.
People like GP should be carefully studied in a controlled environment. I think they believe what they say:
There is no longer a right to privacy, terrorism became sophisticated enough
Same as the "post-9-11 world" and "world has changed" statements, which are based on absolutely nothing. Ironically, terrorism is the opposite of sophisticated. Their methods have not changed and most of these so called terrorists are just maladjusted people who dream of attention (and google some terrorismy things in their basement).
Good luck finding a lawyer who would deal with that case after being tossed in the cooler for a couple months for contempt of court charges...
A password should not be given as that allows the information to be modified, falsified, and comprises security of passwords on other accounts (bank accounts even). The information on facebook should still be provided, by entering the password and monitoring a evidence collector, to allow the accused party to prove their innocence. If the accuser of sexual harassment said to a friend (or on facebook in this case) "I wasn't harrassed I am making it up" that is evidence that can be included in court as proof of innocence to the other party. However, if the accuser says to a friend (or facebook in this case) "I was harrassed" that evidence will not be admissable as proof of guilt to the other party.
You cannot avoid a lawfully issued subpoena (or warrant) by pointing at a contract saying you are obligated not to turn over the requested discovery/evidence. There are certain very limited communications not subject to subpoenas/warrants, and online posts with your friends aren't on that list. (Personal communications with doctors, lawyers, spouses, mental health professionals, and religious ministers are.)
I can think of all sorts of malfeasance that could be hidden if a TOS magically inhibited the discovery process.
The idea of a TOS is legally valid (although that does not stop it from containing invalid terms) but it does not override a court order.
... sexually harassing another...maybe she is butch...
No I didn't RTFA... and yes I can guess that my statement is off target... that it was the woman whom the judge now wants to harass sexually.
Of course maybe she is a bitch that deserves invasion of her privacy..... But not by the Founders of this country's agreement.
Do not put anything in email, text, or social networking site that you don't want somebody else's lawyer holding up in court.
There is one thing that can defeat your claim and that is the ability to change your password. The passwords are not hard wired into the sites and any user at any time can change their password. So you give them a password, they do their thing, you change your password, and everything is as it should be.
Also, a court order is a warrant. A judge issues a warrant upon probable cause. This is what has happened here except the warrant is issues within a civil matter and not necessarily a criminal one (although criminal charges can come from sexual harassment suits). Nothing in this violates the Constitution.
For the sake of my curious mind, let's forget that this is a sexual harassment case for a moment. Under what circumstances is it okay to give someone complete access to your online persona? What situations would prompt you, fellow readers, to give an outside entity your email or facebook password?
If your credit card information is stolen and used to fraudulently purchase steam games online, and you somehow are able to take the offender to trial over it, would you give a judge your online banking password to decide if a crime had been committed? Would a judge need your password to make a ruling?
If you care about your rights, I'm guessing your answer is no. Your attorney would hand the judge all the evidence he needs to make a ruling based on date-stamped, printed material from your bank or the online seller.
Mod parents up - both posts are soooo insightful!!
Fuck me, I agree - used to able to engage in a argument on slashdot - not so much anymore - I am finally starting to see why so many say they no longer even read here. Yes, I'm stupid for hanging around.
But just in case any of you R-turds get the notion, could you argue against any of the points? or does lack thereof speak to the arguments?
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Some of what you said is true. The idea of "Privacy as a right" is one that comes from the courts and jurisprudence and does not come from any actual legislation for the most part and for sure does not come from the Constitution. Furthermore if you look at the INTENT of the 4th amendment, it can be argued that the motivation for it is to stop searches which are intrusive and cause conversion of actual belongings to another party so they can search them. This was and still is a major problem with all kinds of things being seized on a daily basis with and without warrants. However, with data it is possible for people to search it in non-intrusive ways. This is where the conflict comes into play. It might not be infringing on the INTENT of the 4th but it really scares people. There is of course a potential for abuse by those in authority. So long as checks and balances are in place, a happy middle ground can be sought.
I will state that I think its *wrong* for anyone to compel anyone else to reveal passwords or security secrets to anyone.
PERIOD.
nope, no exception. I don't care if jesus is asking for the password. this is just plain WRONG.
judges should honor the basic freedoms we have a bit better.
shame on you, judge (and anyone else who think its their business what's inside someone else's private files)!
every time I read about some authority figure trying to 'get inside' of someone else's stuff, it really ticks me off. why do people tolerate this and why do we allow it, as a society??
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Rather than demanding the password from the customer, the judge should either order the parties to hand over all relevant information to the court, or if they are willing but unable to do so, order Facebook, etc. to preserve the account information for later review by a court-appointed official. The court should of course pay the service providers their actual costs of complying, then send the bill to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can then add the amount to the damages they are seeking.
While expedient, handing over passwords is a bad idea.
If I were Facebook and saw this, I would immediately find out whose accounts these were and disable access to the account on the grounds that "Facebook believes the account's password has been compromised or that its compromise is imminent." This will force the judge to talk to them.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Why are they ordering the women to hand over their passwords? If there is a legitimate legal reasons to obtain the data, why don't they just submit a request to Facebook, Sprint, whoever/whatever and request the specific data dumps that they're looking for?
It is clear that you have not, in fact, ever been able to engage in an argument, on Slashdot or anywhere else.
This is demonstrated by the fact that you ignored the many posts which DID argue effectively against your poorly-made "points", and chose instead to focus on the ones that merely insulted you, dishonestly implying that those were the only type of posts made against you. This is because you knew that the rest had utterly devastated your position, and that you were unable to even attempt a refutation.
You will now inadvertently reinforce the point I have just made.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure....
1) Applies in the criminal, not civil, context, and
2) Is not being breached in this case anyway. This is standard discovery, and the defense is quite entitled to discover evidence that would bolster its own case or impeach the plaintiff's.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
I am stunned that you're ignorant enough to believe there's any truth to that, yet also able to type. Go forth and educate yourself. And no, I am not your teacher.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
one was about opening up your private information to a school, the other is evidence in a court of law. They aren't the same thing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Am I mistaken in thinking that Facebook's terms and conditions require you to be thirteen or older? And therefore, did the school not have a valid concern?
Behaviour on social networks is clearly relevant to a sexual harassment case, the only question is whether the provider should provide the information given that there would be security concerns about revealing a password to anyone, regardless of whether they are court appointed.
Re:Lets split it ...
(defun '"/." (cons ('litigation (branch-l)) ('"news for nerds" (branch-r)) ))
do these parentheses make me look unbalanced?
Doesn't a court order that requires handing over your passwords to personal accounts perfectly exemplify the "Your Rights Online" topic? My opinion is that being legally required by a judge (probably under penalty of jailing for "contempt of court" if you don't agree) to turn over such passwords is definitely "News for Nerds". Thus no need for a split.
.
As to the actual topic: Don't all of the terms of service for most such online services all say "Do not reveal your passwords to others"? Does that mean that the court is ordering you to breach your contract with the service provider possibly opening you to other repercussions without immunizing you?
.
What about 5th-amendment issues against "self incrimination"? What if you have private messages to others which could implicate you in the current court proceeding or in other possibly criminal activities? Since "ignorance of the law" is no excuse, and since new laws criminalize all sorts of behaviours and organizations, how could you be certain that you are not implicating your self for further investigation or criminal procesution?
What about men suing for sexual harassment? =P
It doesn't need to. Ninth Amendment.
The fact that "papers" are explicitly mentioned by the 4th Amendment runs counter to this notion.
Not really. You'd most likely think it pretty intrusive if a government agent interviewed all your exes for details on your relationships and sex life, even though I never set foot in your home or touched any of your belongings. And you'd be right to do so.
It is not a matter of just the fourth amendment
The ninth amendment:
The declaration of independence:
In other news, I'm not allowed to cut people open and tinker with their insides, but apparently surgeons are!
It's political correctness gone mad.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Social network activity is very important when it comes to sexual harassment, but there should be a difference between giving the court access and giving them the raw passwords.
I considering interviewing your exes as intrusive.
Yes, but if the right to privacy is important, don't you think we should enumerate it in the Constitution just to be sure?
Judge ruled that a party in the case must provide a password, in that he error-ed, he should have ordered Facebook to provide the data, not one of the parties.
If I was the aggrieved party, I would just change the password to the judges name and delete the account, after two weeks Facebook will wipe it, and which point I will happily give the other party the password.
true, Facebook could be ordered to restore it from backups, but that's how it should have been done in the first place.
Well, yes, that's my point. It shows that "just collecting data" can easily be intrusive all on its own.
I have a feeling that you're wrong. My emotional state has nothing to do with this feeling.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The science channel showed firefly, that's as close to a sci fi channel that's out there. I have no idea what that 'syfy' channel is.
It's all bad, there is 0 good in it.
I wish I never created a facebook account.
In one case, the State, through its school system, acted without warrant, probable cause or due process, required a private citizen to permit it to invasively search documents and information. This raises constitutional questions not relevant in the civil action.
In the other, a plaintiff began a lawsuit against her employer, submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the Court, and hence discovery of all documents and things that might lead to relevant evidence. The question is whether the discovery demand is for information likely to lead to relevant evidence, and whether it is overreaching. That call goes to the judge on a motion to compel, after briefing and/or a hearing.
Here's a new idea... stop using fucking Facebook, morons!
Yes, ANY woman who is harassed, fondled, groped, raped, or sodomized by a MAN must immediately surrender all rights to privacy and be willing to put her life under a microscope.
This is because ANY MAN knows the woman did SOMETHING sometime in the last 20 years to deserve such treatment.
Signed
The Taliban
OK, that was SARCASM--the JUDGE IS A PUTZ.
No, it doesn't have to be. The point is, are you wasting somebody's time? It doesn't have to be the suspect. It could be anybody. But if the information can be viewed without anybody expending any of their valuable time then I don't consider it intrusive.