Facebook Photos Coming Back To Haunt Users In Surprising Ways
from the privacy-is-an-illusion? dept
There have been a bunch of stories lately about how pictures that people put up on Facebook are coming back to haunt them in unexpected ways. First, we have the case of Adam Bauer, a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student who had been careful about who he friended, but chose to accept a friend request from an unknown user, because "she was a good-looking girl." Turns out that the "good-looking girl" was actually the La Crosse police, who ticketed him for underage drinking because of a photo on Facebook of Bauer holding a drink. This reminds me of a case we wrote about six years ago, involving a woman who posted some naked photos of herself at some locations around Lincoln, Nebraska -- leading the police to charge her with violating local no-nudity laws.The other story that a bunch of folks have submitted was the case of a woman who who lost her disability insurance benefits because of photos on Facebook. She was on sick-leave due to a diagnosis of depression. Yet, somehow the insurance company got access to her Facebook photos that showed her out having fun -- at a birthday party, on vacation and the beach and at a Chippendale's show. Now it's entirely possible that there was insurance fraud going on. Or, it's also possible that someone who had been diagnosed with depression was trying to put her life back together. It's a bit difficult to think that an insurance agent looking at photos online is better at diagnosing the situation than a trained doctor.
In both of these cases, the issue is that photos might not tell the whole story. Making major decisions based just on some photos uploaded to social networks seems fraught with potential problems. I could certainly see using them as part of a larger investigation, but it doesn't seem like that was the case in either situation. But, in the meantime, it's a reminder that your privacy is increasingly disappearing -- and you may be surprised about decisions that others make about you based on what you assumed was perfectly innocent activities.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: insurance, photos, police, social networks
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surely they can outsource this section of their job description to the taxpayers quite willing to provide this service for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insurance Fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Insurance Fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to Privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right to Privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My aunt was in a bad accident (her as the pedestrian against a car). The insurance agent got a hold of her x-rays. He had the gall to say, "I don't see any fractures here, I don't think you need much compensation." Right. Because all of a sudden you are a medical doctor? The x-rays were taken to rule out fractures, nobody claimed otherwise. Doesn't say anything about soft tissue injuries or head trauma.
Point is, insurance agents can be pretty low down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But soft tissue damage can be with you forever.
I have a substantial collection of both.
She should have enlightened him with some soft tissue damage of his own, so he'd be in a better position to make his assessment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Uh... wha? Your bones must be different than mine, 'cause my broken bones sure as heck hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even worse, they're allowed to play doctor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think I got in trouble for doing that as a kid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So if kids can get punished for it, why don't insurance agents? Seems only fair, especially since they should know better. (OK, I am stopping here with the stupid commentary).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bogus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bad joke
IN which case i have no sympathy
IF YOU CAN"T BE SOLID TO YOURSELF....who can you be solid for.
Shows bad character at minimum and sheer stupidity at worst.
AND what if the girls pic had been under age.....OH we know where that would go next....facebook home of champions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've seen this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reward for shots of cops in criminal acts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can the claim adjust practice medicine with out getting into trouble. Secondly if they are a train doctor then they have violated general rule that you can NOT do a remote diagnostics, the doctor must physically see and talk to the patient.
Reminds a case of a poor guy that has been on disability due a tragic work place accident. I know him so his life generally sucks due to long term injuries. Any ways every time there change in the insurance claims office they cut him off with no notice. He then has to fight with them of 8 months to get his insurance back. He has been on disability for nearly 30 years now and has had his insurance abruptly terminated around 8 times. After the 5th time he got legal aid and has a standing court order that they can not cut him off... but that has not stop the insurance company... they play around and delay reinstating his claim... even after threats from the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I was student teaching, someone in my group had a friend who worked for a company that vetted possible employees being considered for a job. Her friend told her that Facebook sells access to companies looking to find out more about potential employees by bypassing all privacy settings to look at user profiles. This means that, regardless of your privacy settings, Facebook will still allow companies to look at your profile if they pay for the privelige.
Although it's not widely known, Facebook is basically a data-mining scheme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This was true at one point, but is no longer. Here's their EULA: http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
Here's the relevant sections:
[Emphasis added]
And from their privacy policy: http://www.facebook.com/policy.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This does not seem legal
Second, how does that photo constitute proof of anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This does not seem legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This does not seem legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This does not seem legal
The police have absolutely no case here, all he has to do is say that he picks up beer and soda cans for recycling, they have no proof otherwise, and there's no law against possessing a beer can by anyone of any age unless the police can prove its contents, and they can't do that from a photo. Even if he labeled the photo "me drinking a beer", they'd need to physically prove it for it to stand up in court (otherwise the statement is just hearsay, and inadmissible).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This does not seem legal
Huh? You're joking, right? It's called being "undercover".
Sure, there are undercover officers, but they have to have this thing called a warrant.
Umm, no, not at all.
They can't lie about their identity in order to access evidence on private property without a warrant.
Are you making this stuff up all on your own or did someone actually tell it to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof
It’s the state’s job to prove the offense and a photo of someone with a cup in their hand doesn’t quite do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proof
In this case he admitted to it to the police. I don't think much evidence is needed after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proof
> > someone with a cup in their hand doesn’t quite do it.
> In this case he admitted to it to the police. I don't think much
> evidence is needed after that.
Well, sure. I was suggesting an alternative strategy that should have been used by those accused. Rather than just confess and plead nolo, they should make the state do its job and meet its burden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no privacy here
As such, I have to disagree with the tone behind "your privacy is increasingly disappearing". This is not the same as the public suddenly having access to the shoebox of photos you have in your closet through no fault of your own; this is a direct result of you (using the same "you" from "your privacy..."), to use an old-school metaphor, putting your own pictures on public access TV.
Your privacy is not disappearing of its own accord (in this case); you are surrendering your own privacy by using these services.
Decide for yourself if the benefit of connecting with friends is worth the cost of non-friends "connecting" with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no privacy here
Good for you. Would you like a cookie with that opinion? Are you also of the opinion that anything you store on a computer that's connected to the internet is public as well? I've heard the opinion expressed, and it wouldn't surprise me if you shared it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is no privacy here
You can keep your cookie, and the chips contained therein. It goes well with the one on your shoulder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy Reminder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]