Reading the summary, I don't think the the problem is "talking to a computer," but having it talk back. And I don't mean "reaspond," I mean really talk. As noted elsewhere, voice-commands have been around for a while now, and it's not absurd to speak commands to a computer and have it react appropriately. That being said, the idea that you could have a normal language conversation with a computer does kind of weird me out: it's not that the computer is just responding, it's participating.
I agree that people should feel free to express themselves, but at the same time, I think people should also be ready to accept the consequences of that expression when they do so in a forum that could, potentially, be public. Basically, exercise discretion if they are worried about potential consequences.
And that's fair. I think people should be willing to accept the consequences of their words and deeds, too. I'm just questioning the particular response here. Monitoring, or having someone observe her for a time, or some kind of an investigation into her performance at work -- those things I think would be appropriate. I don't think being suspended for venting about work when you're off-duty and away from your charges is a reasonable response.
That might just be an irreconcileble difference between you and me, but it seems that in your scenario one would rightly live in a state of constant fear, lest Something Bad happen. I'm not saying give her a pass, just be reasonable about the response.
Aside: <i> doesn't seem to be working, but I think I got <em> to give me italics...
Anything on the internet that is not explicitly protected by a password is, essentially, public.
So is a conversation in a restraunt, but I don't think we should expect people to be fired for venting about work in their off time. That's a recipe for disaster. People should feel free to express themselves, and as long as it doesn't directly impact their performance then it shouldn't affect their employment. Show me where it has measurably affected her treatment of her students and I'm on board 100%.
Nothing is obscure - and saying that there's a difference between some blogspot blog and Wired magazine is not relevant to this particular issue. Sure, the blog will likely be lower ranked than the Wired article, but for a search by name, they'd both likely show up on the first page or three of results. It's public enough. More to the point, this kind of thing (someone finding a supposedly "obscure" comment or post or picture) happens frequently enough that it should be considered reasonable to assume that it will be found rather than it won't.
I'm well aware of this, and while saying things "in public" like this might make her foolish, impolitic, tech-impaired, or even a "bad person," I don't think it passes muster for suspending her, that's all I'm saying. If the things you say about her being a bully, losing her students' confidence, or letting personal feelings impact her ability to teach are true, then suspend her for those.
Harassment, on-line or off, is still grounds to be fired because it creates a hostile environment; this, I think, goes far to creating a hostile environment.
It's not harrassment if you don't know I'm saying it. It's not harrassment if someone else tells you I'm saying it. It's not harrassment if there's no confrontation between you and me. What this teacher posted on her blog is not harrassment.
My tone is a little fierce (in other posts replying to you) with this because I actually do work with youth (specifically highly at-risk youth who have often been severely mistreated by adults and other authority figures in their lives), and it is extremely hard for a kid who has been attacked in this way to get past it and still work with the people who transgressed.
Don't take this the wrong way, as I greatly respect your line of work, but it may be that your personal experiences and proximity to highly at-risk youth puts you a bit too close to the subject at hand. Not all kids are at-risk, not all kids have been burned as badly as the ones you work with. I propose that most kids are better able to deal with situations like this if they haven't had the severe and/or recurrent mistreatment that I assume your charges have. I'm decidedly not in the "shit happens, learn to deal, get over it, welcome to the real world" camp, but I do have faith that most people underestimate what kids are capable of understanding and dealing with, especially if they have positive support groups.
pointless abuse from adults who should know better should be something we can help them not have to put up with.
My point is that unless there's information we haven't been given, the only reason these kids have to "deal with" anything from this teacher is because some "concerned parent" felt it was their duty to expose what the teacher really thought of them. My point is that it was irresposible of that parent and, unless there was actual problems with the teacher prior to this becoming well-known, totally unnecessary.
If people respond poorly to behavior that is within the normally accepted bounds of a workplace, then the person responding poorly is culpable. But when someone behaves in a way that transgresses those boundaries, they then become responsible for the reaction of other people because their behavior is poor.
This happened outside of the workplace, and was only brought INTO the workplace by someone else. The "someone else" made the work environmernt hostile.
Teachers publicly humiliating and insulting students, by name, in a public forum that reaches far past the classroom, is transgressive. If her students are not able to work with her, it's her fault.
There's no indication that that's what happened. No names and dubious claims of "in public."
The problem is that if the students did the same thing writing about her and it was found, they'd get in trouble, with some explanation along the lines that by publicly insulting their teacher they were making her an object of ridicule and diminishing her ability to teach. I've seen that happen.
I've seen the same thing, and seen arguments about how that's unreasonable because they're off campus and should be allowed to express themselves. Writing on a blog at home is not the same as interrupting the class while in session.
By publicly naming and insulting her students in this way, she's being a bully.
I saw nothing that said she named names, and I'm skeptical how "public" this was. If she had a blogspot account that some parent stumbled upon that's different than if this was written in Wired magazine, or even if it was a blog she regularly shared with her students. I doubt that either of the latter cases are what happened here, and so it's no more public than if she was talking to her friends at a restraunt and someone overheard her.
...diminishing THEIR ability to learn by turning that environment hostile.
I think you have a point here, but ONLY if she was actually making the environment hostile. If, before the blog was found, her students were none the wiser, I don't see that it's an issue. In fact, if that was the case, I would be inclined to blame whatever "concerned parent" decided to tell everyone that their teacher disliked them. In that case the parent would have made the environment hostile, not the teacher.
It's about like a grown man punching a 10 year old boy in the face - that 10 year old boy is NOT going to have the resources to deal with that situation.
As I stated above, that only holds if the teacher insulted the kids to their face; saying "he should be punched" and actually punching someone are very different. And telling a kid "you're teacher thinks you should be punched" is irrisponsible on your part, regardless of how true the statement might be.
However, if I went to my blog and wrote insults about them and put their full names on them, I would fully expect consequences at work.
But I don't think you should expect to be fired. And recent court settlements would agree with me.
Now, she may be capable of instructing people she doesn't like or respect, but who cares about her? Can the kids learn from someone who has publicly humiliated them?
As noted, unless I've missed something the teacher didn't publicly humiliate them; whoever made her feelings public is the one who xcaused the humiliation and hostile environment. If she's able to teach them despite her feelings then there's no problem with what her private feelings are. If instead she was unable to teach them, we should be talking about her inability to teach, not her personal feelings.
You're also completely missing the point by trying to compare what these kids are having to deal with to what you have to deal with at work. You aren't a child, you aren't being publicly humiliated by someone who has vastly more authority than you do - it's just entirely different.
I don't think you're giving kids enough credit here, actually.
Some people are smart enough to realise (and have the restraint) that you don't need to be connected all the time; that it's actually healthier not to be.
I'm sure others will point this out, but having a smartphone (or any phone) and being "connected all the time" are not the same thing. You can ignore phone calls and resist the urge to compulsively check email; the devices you carry with you don't manadte your behavior.
My main reason for not having a smartphone, despite the fact that it would reduce the devices I regularly carry from 3 to 1, is that I would want to use the device but feel that current usage plans don't adequately allow for that. It may be a misconception, but the perception of capped/metered usage and throttled bandwidth are bigger points to me than "being connected" or even price at this point.
Here's a hint: the teacher is supposed to be the RESPONSIBLE one of this matchup.
No, I don't see how that's pertinent. Just because she doesn't like her students doesn't mean she's not doing her job. It's not irresponsible to complain about people you don't like. Impolitic, maybe, but I'm less interested in politically-savvy teachers than I am in capable educators.
If she's not doing her job that's irresponsible, but if she's doing it despite personal feelings, I'd say that's the definition of responsibility.
it would be much more obviously a breach of etiquette and/or rules.
I'm not even sure of that. I'd like to see the code of conduct/employment agreement that she signed that censors her off-campus speech.
It's likely that it was a personal blog with no security controls to speak of, but also no specific names of students. If that's the case, I don't see the problem with what she said
Teachers are expected to lead their charges in the right direction and have made the choice to be a teacher in the first place.
And if a teacher is doing that when acting in her position at school, I don't see a problem with her holding or expressing negative opinions outside of school. Writing in her blog is not the same as neglecting or mistreating her students. Just as I can work with co-workers I don't like or respect, I'm sure she's capable of instructing people she doesn't like or respect.
Would you say the same thing if it was a student suspended for off-campus speach about his teachers? It seems Slashdot has a problem with punishing the students for this kind of behavior, and I don't see anything that would negate that principle here.
THIS. I anticipate a lot of kneejerking posts in this thread, but come on, she deserved it. When you continuously insult and degrade your teachers publicly, whether it's in person or online, don't be surprised when the school suspends your ass, and for good reason.
Depending on the status of her blog, it's arguable how public that kind of communication should be considered. While I think it's dumb that she would post such brutally honest feelings somewhere the parents could find it, I'm not sure it's much different than if she were to say the same things to friends at a bar -- and in the bar situation I would definitely say it's her right to say what she wants without this kind of disciplionary action.
The fact of the matter is, sometimes this stuff is true. And it's definitely true that despite the best intentions, lots of teachers feel this way, even if it's only for the space of an afternoon after a particularly difficult week. Are we meant to fire every teacher who has a negative thought about her students? It's probable that there's more to the story that would change my mind, but I don't see how this is any different that suspending a student because he said he hates his Principal on Facebook.
But I think a non-insignificant amount of people think $50 is way too much to pay for any game.
Well, I don't doubt that, but it's not really the point. If you aren't willing to pay $50 for a game, it's irrelevant that you still don't want to pay $50 for a game. More important, though, is the "typical gamer" who currently IS paying $50 for a game but is slowly getting accustomed to more value at a lower price point.
Much as I'd like to agree, the MPAA studios are not exactly small businesses. Based on a cursory look at their market caps, the 'big six' combined are on roughly equal footing with Google, with a significant part of that coming from Disney. I don't doubt that Google would win if the MPAA really tried to fight on this one, but it's not quite as clear-cut as one might think.
Except that you're now talking about 6 major competitors fronting money for a fight that they probably won't win and, even if they do, probably won't have any positive effect (and would definitely have the negative effect of being the guys who killed the Internet as we know it). So although a 6-on-1 fight between the MPAA and Google might be "roughly equal," I'd say it's still quite a stretch that it would ever go that far.
Have the console maker do it via locking down their console or have the game publishers make a crazy mess of it.
The better option is to have an open console and force game publishers to do DRM if they feel it's necessary. That way, you have an open console that you can do what you like with, and game publishers will either (1) wisen up and realize that DRM is an inefficient money sink that their customers don't want and pirates don't care about, or (2) they'll die off. It's been shown repeatedly that quality content doesn't need to be protected by DRM to be successful.
This is true. But if consumers get "used" to paying a little bit of money for a little bit of fun, then those $50 games are going to start losing market share. It might be the case that high-quality games make the cut with Gamers, and more-entrenched series might be able to last, the fact of the matter is that if consumers get used to a certain price point it seems they're less inclined to pay more, even for demonstably higher quality.
If it was just a case that Nintendo felt this would cut in to their virtual console sales, I'm not sure they'd be complaining that it's "bad for the industry." It's the long-term consequences that matter more.
I don't see why Nintendo can't get in on the action too.
Can't or won't? I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Nintendo fan, but this sounds a lot like "we're used to getting $50-$60 a pop for games, and these new kinds might make us drop our prices."
I concede the piont: the summary and title are, I believe, misleading. This isn't "mining" Facebook for evidence, and seems to be legitimate Discovery (rather than some kind of fishing expedition).
The courts can compel discovery if the particular items are believed to be relevant to the case in progress; they couldn't compel discovery of unrelated letters or journals, etc. Private vs. Public is only meanigful in the question of searches, not court discovery proceeedings, and I thought we were talking about the former.
I think he meant to say "something in which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy" is something that you've told to nobody else.
Wikipedia is a suspect source, but according to them, a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is just what society at large would consider private. That includes more than just "things no one knows."
As stated by others elsewhere, though, this appears to be about discovery, in which case privacy isn't strictly speaking an issue. The Cops may not be able to search your diary/home movies/email without a warrant/probable cause, but it can still be sought as evidence if it could be pertinent to the case.
The title and summary are misleading; Facebook isn't being "mined" for evidence.
You're confusing the everyday understanding of "that's private, only me and my friends know" with the legal term of art entitled "reasonable expectation of privacy". The two are quite different.
That's probably true; IANAL.
However, what I can quickly find online about "expectation of privacy" relates mostly to searches; since this is discovery, that's not really relevant. As someone elsewhere said, this isn't about Public vs. Private, it's about whether what's sought is relevant to the case.
The title and summary are misleading, I think; Facebook isn't being "mined" for evidence.
I'm not arguing that things that are marked as Public are somehow Private, but I am saying that things which are access-controlled aren't Public.
Comments below note that this is about the Discovery process in a case, which changes the actual scenario a bit, but I don't feel it changes my point here.
They're personal-injury lawyers, who are unauthorized, requesting and recieving court-compelled authorization from the account owner. The question is less about authorization and more about whether it's proper for the courts to be compelling these authorizations.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading the summary, I don't think the the problem is "talking to a computer," but having it talk back. And I don't mean "reaspond," I mean really talk. As noted elsewhere, voice-commands have been around for a while now, and it's not absurd to speak commands to a computer and have it react appropriately. That being said, the idea that you could have a normal language conversation with a computer does kind of weird me out: it's not that the computer is just responding, it's participating.
Not need; want. I don't have to carry them around, but I enjoy my devices. A smartphone could serve the function of several of these devices.
I agree that people should feel free to express themselves, but at the same time, I think people should also be ready to accept the consequences of that expression when they do so in a forum that could, potentially, be public. Basically, exercise discretion if they are worried about potential consequences.
And that's fair. I think people should be willing to accept the consequences of their words and deeds, too. I'm just questioning the particular response here. Monitoring, or having someone observe her for a time, or some kind of an investigation into her performance at work -- those things I think would be appropriate. I don't think being suspended for venting about work when you're off-duty and away from your charges is a reasonable response.
That might just be an irreconcileble difference between you and me, but it seems that in your scenario one would rightly live in a state of constant fear, lest Something Bad happen. I'm not saying give her a pass, just be reasonable about the response.
Aside: <i> doesn't seem to be working, but I think I got <em> to give me italics...
Anything on the internet that is not explicitly protected by a password is, essentially, public.
So is a conversation in a restraunt, but I don't think we should expect people to be fired for venting about work in their off time. That's a recipe for disaster. People should feel free to express themselves, and as long as it doesn't directly impact their performance then it shouldn't affect their employment. Show me where it has measurably affected her treatment of her students and I'm on board 100%.
Nothing is obscure - and saying that there's a difference between some blogspot blog and Wired magazine is not relevant to this particular issue. Sure, the blog will likely be lower ranked than the Wired article, but for a search by name, they'd both likely show up on the first page or three of results. It's public enough. More to the point, this kind of thing (someone finding a supposedly "obscure" comment or post or picture) happens frequently enough that it should be considered reasonable to assume that it will be found rather than it won't.
I'm well aware of this, and while saying things "in public" like this might make her foolish, impolitic, tech-impaired, or even a "bad person," I don't think it passes muster for suspending her, that's all I'm saying. If the things you say about her being a bully, losing her students' confidence, or letting personal feelings impact her ability to teach are true, then suspend her for those.
Harassment, on-line or off, is still grounds to be fired because it creates a hostile environment; this, I think, goes far to creating a hostile environment.
It's not harrassment if you don't know I'm saying it. It's not harrassment if someone else tells you I'm saying it. It's not harrassment if there's no confrontation between you and me. What this teacher posted on her blog is not harrassment.
My tone is a little fierce (in other posts replying to you) with this because I actually do work with youth (specifically highly at-risk youth who have often been severely mistreated by adults and other authority figures in their lives), and it is extremely hard for a kid who has been attacked in this way to get past it and still work with the people who transgressed.
Don't take this the wrong way, as I greatly respect your line of work, but it may be that your personal experiences and proximity to highly at-risk youth puts you a bit too close to the subject at hand. Not all kids are at-risk, not all kids have been burned as badly as the ones you work with. I propose that most kids are better able to deal with situations like this if they haven't had the severe and/or recurrent mistreatment that I assume your charges have. I'm decidedly not in the "shit happens, learn to deal, get over it, welcome to the real world" camp, but I do have faith that most people underestimate what kids are capable of understanding and dealing with, especially if they have positive support groups.
pointless abuse from adults who should know better should be something we can help them not have to put up with.
My point is that unless there's information we haven't been given, the only reason these kids have to "deal with" anything from this teacher is because some "concerned parent" felt it was their duty to expose what the teacher really thought of them. My point is that it was irresposible of that parent and, unless there was actual problems with the teacher prior to this becoming well-known, totally unnecessary.
If people respond poorly to behavior that is within the normally accepted bounds of a workplace, then the person responding poorly is culpable. But when someone behaves in a way that transgresses those boundaries, they then become responsible for the reaction of other people because their behavior is poor.
This happened outside of the workplace, and was only brought INTO the workplace by someone else. The "someone else" made the work environmernt hostile.
Teachers publicly humiliating and insulting students, by name, in a public forum that reaches far past the classroom, is transgressive. If her students are not able to work with her, it's her fault.
There's no indication that that's what happened. No names and dubious claims of "in public."
The problem is that if the students did the same thing writing about her and it was found, they'd get in trouble, with some explanation along the lines that by publicly insulting their teacher they were making her an object of ridicule and diminishing her ability to teach. I've seen that happen.
I've seen the same thing, and seen arguments about how that's unreasonable because they're off campus and should be allowed to express themselves. Writing on a blog at home is not the same as interrupting the class while in session.
By publicly naming and insulting her students in this way, she's being a bully.
I saw nothing that said she named names, and I'm skeptical how "public" this was. If she had a blogspot account that some parent stumbled upon that's different than if this was written in Wired magazine, or even if it was a blog she regularly shared with her students. I doubt that either of the latter cases are what happened here, and so it's no more public than if she was talking to her friends at a restraunt and someone overheard her.
...diminishing THEIR ability to learn by turning that environment hostile.
I think you have a point here, but ONLY if she was actually making the environment hostile. If, before the blog was found, her students were none the wiser, I don't see that it's an issue. In fact, if that was the case, I would be inclined to blame whatever "concerned parent" decided to tell everyone that their teacher disliked them. In that case the parent would have made the environment hostile, not the teacher.
It's about like a grown man punching a 10 year old boy in the face - that 10 year old boy is NOT going to have the resources to deal with that situation.
As I stated above, that only holds if the teacher insulted the kids to their face; saying "he should be punched" and actually punching someone are very different. And telling a kid "you're teacher thinks you should be punched" is irrisponsible on your part, regardless of how true the statement might be.
However, if I went to my blog and wrote insults about them and put their full names on them, I would fully expect consequences at work.
But I don't think you should expect to be fired. And recent court settlements would agree with me.
Now, she may be capable of instructing people she doesn't like or respect, but who cares about her? Can the kids learn from someone who has publicly humiliated them?
As noted, unless I've missed something the teacher didn't publicly humiliate them; whoever made her feelings public is the one who xcaused the humiliation and hostile environment. If she's able to teach them despite her feelings then there's no problem with what her private feelings are. If instead she was unable to teach them, we should be talking about her inability to teach, not her personal feelings.
You're also completely missing the point by trying to compare what these kids are having to deal with to what you have to deal with at work. You aren't a child, you aren't being publicly humiliated by someone who has vastly more authority than you do - it's just entirely different.
I don't think you're giving kids enough credit here, actually.
Some people are smart enough to realise (and have the restraint) that you don't need to be connected all the time; that it's actually healthier not to be.
I'm sure others will point this out, but having a smartphone (or any phone) and being "connected all the time" are not the same thing. You can ignore phone calls and resist the urge to compulsively check email; the devices you carry with you don't manadte your behavior.
My main reason for not having a smartphone, despite the fact that it would reduce the devices I regularly carry from 3 to 1, is that I would want to use the device but feel that current usage plans don't adequately allow for that. It may be a misconception, but the perception of capped/metered usage and throttled bandwidth are bigger points to me than "being connected" or even price at this point.
Here's a hint: the teacher is supposed to be the RESPONSIBLE one of this matchup.
No, I don't see how that's pertinent. Just because she doesn't like her students doesn't mean she's not doing her job. It's not irresponsible to complain about people you don't like. Impolitic, maybe, but I'm less interested in politically-savvy teachers than I am in capable educators.
If she's not doing her job that's irresponsible, but if she's doing it despite personal feelings, I'd say that's the definition of responsibility.
it would be much more obviously a breach of etiquette and/or rules.
I'm not even sure of that. I'd like to see the code of conduct/employment agreement that she signed that censors her off-campus speech.
It's likely that it was a personal blog with no security controls to speak of, but also no specific names of students. If that's the case, I don't see the problem with what she said
.
Teachers are expected to lead their charges in the right direction and have made the choice to be a teacher in the first place.
And if a teacher is doing that when acting in her position at school, I don't see a problem with her holding or expressing negative opinions outside of school. Writing in her blog is not the same as neglecting or mistreating her students. Just as I can work with co-workers I don't like or respect, I'm sure she's capable of instructing people she doesn't like or respect.
THIS. I anticipate a lot of kneejerking posts in this thread, but come on, she deserved it. When you continuously insult and degrade your teachers publicly, whether it's in person or online, don't be surprised when the school suspends your ass, and for good reason.
Depending on the status of her blog, it's arguable how public that kind of communication should be considered. While I think it's dumb that she would post such brutally honest feelings somewhere the parents could find it, I'm not sure it's much different than if she were to say the same things to friends at a bar -- and in the bar situation I would definitely say it's her right to say what she wants without this kind of disciplionary action.
The fact of the matter is, sometimes this stuff is true. And it's definitely true that despite the best intentions, lots of teachers feel this way, even if it's only for the space of an afternoon after a particularly difficult week. Are we meant to fire every teacher who has a negative thought about her students? It's probable that there's more to the story that would change my mind, but I don't see how this is any different that suspending a student because he said he hates his Principal on Facebook.
and even alpaca socks.
They have finally arrived.
But I think a non-insignificant amount of people think $50 is way too much to pay for any game.
Well, I don't doubt that, but it's not really the point. If you aren't willing to pay $50 for a game, it's irrelevant that you still don't want to pay $50 for a game. More important, though, is the "typical gamer" who currently IS paying $50 for a game but is slowly getting accustomed to more value at a lower price point.
Much as I'd like to agree, the MPAA studios are not exactly small businesses. Based on a cursory look at their market caps, the 'big six' combined are on roughly equal footing with Google, with a significant part of that coming from Disney. I don't doubt that Google would win if the MPAA really tried to fight on this one, but it's not quite as clear-cut as one might think.
Except that you're now talking about 6 major competitors fronting money for a fight that they probably won't win and, even if they do, probably won't have any positive effect (and would definitely have the negative effect of being the guys who killed the Internet as we know it). So although a 6-on-1 fight between the MPAA and Google might be "roughly equal," I'd say it's still quite a stretch that it would ever go that far.
Have the console maker do it via locking down their console or have the game publishers make a crazy mess of it.
The better option is to have an open console and force game publishers to do DRM if they feel it's necessary. That way, you have an open console that you can do what you like with, and game publishers will either (1) wisen up and realize that DRM is an inefficient money sink that their customers don't want and pirates don't care about, or (2) they'll die off. It's been shown repeatedly that quality content doesn't need to be protected by DRM to be successful.
This is true. But if consumers get "used" to paying a little bit of money for a little bit of fun, then those $50 games are going to start losing market share. It might be the case that high-quality games make the cut with Gamers, and more-entrenched series might be able to last, the fact of the matter is that if consumers get used to a certain price point it seems they're less inclined to pay more, even for demonstably higher quality. If it was just a case that Nintendo felt this would cut in to their virtual console sales, I'm not sure they'd be complaining that it's "bad for the industry." It's the long-term consequences that matter more.
I don't see why Nintendo can't get in on the action too.
Can't or won't? I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Nintendo fan, but this sounds a lot like "we're used to getting $50-$60 a pop for games, and these new kinds might make us drop our prices."
I concede the piont: the summary and title are, I believe, misleading. This isn't "mining" Facebook for evidence, and seems to be legitimate Discovery (rather than some kind of fishing expedition).
The courts can compel discovery if the particular items are believed to be relevant to the case in progress; they couldn't compel discovery of unrelated letters or journals, etc. Private vs. Public is only meanigful in the question of searches, not court discovery proceeedings, and I thought we were talking about the former.
I think he meant to say "something in which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy" is something that you've told to nobody else.
Wikipedia is a suspect source, but according to them, a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is just what society at large would consider private. That includes more than just "things no one knows."
As stated by others elsewhere, though, this appears to be about discovery, in which case privacy isn't strictly speaking an issue. The Cops may not be able to search your diary/home movies/email without a warrant/probable cause, but it can still be sought as evidence if it could be pertinent to the case.
The title and summary are misleading; Facebook isn't being "mined" for evidence.
You're confusing the everyday understanding of "that's private, only me and my friends know" with the legal term of art entitled "reasonable expectation of privacy". The two are quite different.
That's probably true; IANAL.
However, what I can quickly find online about "expectation of privacy" relates mostly to searches; since this is discovery, that's not really relevant. As someone elsewhere said, this isn't about Public vs. Private, it's about whether what's sought is relevant to the case.
The title and summary are misleading, I think; Facebook isn't being "mined" for evidence.
if they didn't make any privacy changes
And if they did?
I'm not arguing that things that are marked as Public are somehow Private, but I am saying that things which are access-controlled aren't Public.
Comments below note that this is about the Discovery process in a case, which changes the actual scenario a bit, but I don't feel it changes my point here.
They're personal-injury lawyers, who are unauthorized, requesting and recieving court-compelled authorization from the account owner. The question is less about authorization and more about whether it's proper for the courts to be compelling these authorizations.
Some might argue that sex is a social activity (especially if multiple partners are involved) but few would argue that this makes it public fare.
It is if you post the results on Facebook.
Well played.
Legally, private does not mean 'stuff you want to control', it means 'stuff no one other than yourself knows'.
Citation needed, since you're invoking some special legal definition of private.