Could Facebook's Ever-Changing Privacy Policies Impact Whether You Can Subpoena's Someone's Facebook Page In Court?
from the ah,-legal-complexities dept
Michael Scott points us to an interesting analysis of a case that examined whether or not certain aspects of your Facebook page could be subpoenaed in a civil lawsuit, and the answer more or less came down to the privacy settings on that content:The case involved copyright claims brought by a plaintiff who licensed his artwork to a garment maker. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant-licensee used the copyrighted material outside the scope of the license and breached the license agreement. The defendant-licensee issued a subpoena to Facebook seeking the plaintiff's Facebook wall posts, profile information, and communications with a third party. The plaintiff moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the Facebook messages, wall postings, and certain profile information fell under the Stored Communications Act and therefore could not be produced by Facebook pursuant to a civil subpoena.That definitely makes sense, but with so much attention recently on Facebook's ever changing privacy policies, you may have to add in a time-component as well. However, it does seem weird that a change in Facebook's policies could determine whether or not your Facebook wall ends up in court...
The court largely agreed, although it remanded to the magistrate judge for the magistrate judge to address the factual issue of whether certain of the sought after information was publicly available. To the extent the privacy settings on the profile page allowed the general public to access the information it could be produced by Facebook, but non-public information would be treated differently.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Facebook is completely incidental to the situation at hand. In fact, ANY website could cause this problem.
The reasons why Facebook is the focus here is because Facebook is popular and Facebook has revised their privacy policy frequently. But the actual root of the problem remains in the legal system itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Facebook is essentially public
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Facebook is essentially public
Fix that to have less weasel words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Consider...
And consider, that even self-destructing messages could even be recorded using a small eyeglass mounted video camera, which formerly were only available to agents with a 00 rating, but are now available for under $200 from many places on the internet.
There is no expectation of privacy once you speak or write anything. Remember, two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.
If you want something kept secret, either invest in your own Dome of Silence or Stare at Goats until you can communicate telepathically.
Where's my martini... ah yes... shaken, not stirred... just the way I like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]