Read this article
Abril, Patricia Sanchez.“(My)Space of One's Own: On Privacy and Online Social Networks, A”6 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 80 (2007-2008)
In Patricia Sanchez Abril’s article she examines the nature of social networking sites and their diverse memberships. Abril begins her article by defining what social networking sites are commonly used for as well as identifying the two main groups that use them. The typically younger users are identified as the “digital natives” as they typically have never been without the internet and other modern technologies. The other group Abril identifies is the “digital immigrants,” social network users who tend to be older and therefore have not been immersed in computer interfaces from a young age. The point of view of the article hinges on how Abril presents these two different groups, as it is not simply an age gap or computer fluency gap, but “fundamental conceptual differences regarding privacy.” Abril presents the “digital natives” as desiring the freedom to post personal information on the internet, while enjoying a healthy level of anonymity. Abril uses the analogy of how people in their cars, though in public view, don’t expect others to be watching them pick their teeth or talking to themselves. Abril then contrasts them with the “digital immigrants” and how they view privacy in a much different light. As the “digital immigrants” tend to be older they have as Abril writes, “(grown) up in a world where they had the luxury of control over their information.” The “digital immigrants” had the ability to have records altered through legal means and they also relied on the tendency of others to eventually forget. For the “digital immigrant” before the internet, their histories were not set in stone. These two competing views on privacy ultimately clash as the “digital native” expects to have anonymity, while the “digital immigrant” sees this as impossible as the indelible nature of the internet makes total anonymity appear impossible. The issue is made even more complex as it is the “digital immigrants” who have established the tort laws that are to protect one’s name. In the end Abril asserts that even though the total control that “digital immigrants” desire is not possible, social networking sites do aid “digital natives” as they form their identities.
If one were seeking to answer the question of whether social networking sites should be trusted with their user’s personal information Abril’s work would be an important tool because it contrasts two differing views on privacy. The piece would be useful to those who are relatively new to the issues surrounding social networking as well as intergenerational views on privacy on the internet. Abril builds her article around the two major groups that are concerned and explains why they view privacy in such vastly different ways. She also takes care to utilize plane language in describing a technologically complex subject and takes care to define terms that might be lost on a person that is unfamiliar with social networking sites. Abril also employs a number of colorful metaphors as well as pop culture references to communicate some of the more difficult concepts. Another important element that Abril included in the article was a discussion of tort privacy law. Nearly the second half of the article is concerned with the tort privacy law and Abril’s article lays out the four main forms tort privacy takes. The second half of the paper is a useful tool because Abril explains in (mostly) plane English the various responsibility’s Internet Service Providers and social network users have under the law. This inclusion is also important because it draws attention to is the practical limitations tort law has when it is applied to personal information that has been posted online. The article explains in an accessible manner the complex legal issues without bogging down the potential reader with impenetrable legal terminology. This approach also allows reader to grasp the gravity of information, photos, and videos that are posted on the internet. Also Abril is evenhanded in presenting the pros and cons associated with using an online social network such as MySpace without ever appearing to minimize or exaggerate the potential risks. Abril presents the evidence for both the “digital natives” and the “digital immigrants” perspectives, while still emphasizing the user’s personal responsibility and allows the reader to make their own informed choice.
Showing posts with label Assumptions of Anonymity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assumptions of Anonymity. Show all posts
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Videotaping This Crime Spree Was the Best Idea Ever
Read this article
Timm, Dianne M., and Carolyn J. Duven. "Privacy and social networking sites." New Directions for Student Services 124 (2008): 89-101. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 24 Apr. 2010.
Timm and Duven’s open their article by defining what a social networking site is as well as defining terms such as privacy and personal information. Having defined the terms that will permeate their discourse they transition to exclusively focus on the issue of privacy, mainly what are reasonable expectations a college student may have about their own privacy. Timm and Duven suggest that when contemplating issues of privacy, there are two important considerations to keep in mind: the intent of the information shared and the expectation that it will remain private. For an example of the latter Timm and Duven explain that even though the student may post photos that are only visible to those who are on their friends list, since the student has made the pictures public to a few he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In essence, the student who posts the photos on a social networking site for others to view cannot assume it is private because the intent is to share the photos with others. Timm and Duven also assert that, “Student behavior has not changed dramatically over the past twenty to thirty years. Students are still drinking, hanging out with friends, playing pranks, and experimenting with their identities in a variety of ways. What has changed is the way in which administrators are able to view this behavior.” This change has brought a plethora of new challenges to many collages faculty, administrators, and student affairs professionals. Timm and Duven encourage those who work with students to be proactive in using social networking technology to gather information, but to do so, “To ensure that students’ rights are respected, education related to current policies needs to occur to avoid hindering students’ ability to express themselves online.” Timm and Duven also emphasize the importance of disclosure writing, “Students will benefit from knowing that administrators can see what they are doing if professionals are honest about what is viewed and eliminate the feeling of big brother watching.” By not simply neglecting unacceptable behavior the faculty and staff can better maintain an environment conducive to a high quality education.
Timm and Duven’s work is important because it examines the nature of personal information in the context of social networking, specifically because it seeks to clearly define personal information as well as privacy. Their article displays this importance in that it defines a few of the major terms found in the question of whether people should trust social networking sites with their personal information. It is in the clarification of the terms used that the reader can have a greater appreciation of the context of the debate and thereby has a greater understanding of the limitations and appropriate applications of the terms used. In essence, when the reader understands the terms of the debate they are better equipped to think critically about the issue.
Also in gearing the article to specifically inform educators and student activities professionals the piece is an excellent resource to better inform those who may not understand the basics of social networking sites. Timm and Duven’s article is also important to consult because it examines the ethics of monitoring student’s activities as a means of curbing unacceptable behavior. This is an important element of the debate to consider as more and more students are being disciplined for violating rules, for which the only evidence is photos that have been posted online. This element illustrates the articles importance because it allows the reader to more intelligently understand the friction between a students assumed right to anonymity and the reality that they very well may be incriminating themselves when they wouldn’t have been caught otherwise. The fact that online monitoring is presented as a tool is tempered with Timm and Duven’s encouragement to use it ethically, by communicating to students in an upfront manner the fact that the monitoring of social networking sites will happen and that care will be taken to not violate the student’s ability to express themselves unnecessarily. Timm and Duven are able to communicate the balance between the student’s privacy rights and the faculty’s legal obligations by approaching the issue with the goal of protecting both parties without disregarding the impact it may have on the other.
Timm, Dianne M., and Carolyn J. Duven. "Privacy and social networking sites." New Directions for Student Services 124 (2008): 89-101. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 24 Apr. 2010.
Timm and Duven’s open their article by defining what a social networking site is as well as defining terms such as privacy and personal information. Having defined the terms that will permeate their discourse they transition to exclusively focus on the issue of privacy, mainly what are reasonable expectations a college student may have about their own privacy. Timm and Duven suggest that when contemplating issues of privacy, there are two important considerations to keep in mind: the intent of the information shared and the expectation that it will remain private. For an example of the latter Timm and Duven explain that even though the student may post photos that are only visible to those who are on their friends list, since the student has made the pictures public to a few he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In essence, the student who posts the photos on a social networking site for others to view cannot assume it is private because the intent is to share the photos with others. Timm and Duven also assert that, “Student behavior has not changed dramatically over the past twenty to thirty years. Students are still drinking, hanging out with friends, playing pranks, and experimenting with their identities in a variety of ways. What has changed is the way in which administrators are able to view this behavior.” This change has brought a plethora of new challenges to many collages faculty, administrators, and student affairs professionals. Timm and Duven encourage those who work with students to be proactive in using social networking technology to gather information, but to do so, “To ensure that students’ rights are respected, education related to current policies needs to occur to avoid hindering students’ ability to express themselves online.” Timm and Duven also emphasize the importance of disclosure writing, “Students will benefit from knowing that administrators can see what they are doing if professionals are honest about what is viewed and eliminate the feeling of big brother watching.” By not simply neglecting unacceptable behavior the faculty and staff can better maintain an environment conducive to a high quality education.
Timm and Duven’s work is important because it examines the nature of personal information in the context of social networking, specifically because it seeks to clearly define personal information as well as privacy. Their article displays this importance in that it defines a few of the major terms found in the question of whether people should trust social networking sites with their personal information. It is in the clarification of the terms used that the reader can have a greater appreciation of the context of the debate and thereby has a greater understanding of the limitations and appropriate applications of the terms used. In essence, when the reader understands the terms of the debate they are better equipped to think critically about the issue.
Also in gearing the article to specifically inform educators and student activities professionals the piece is an excellent resource to better inform those who may not understand the basics of social networking sites. Timm and Duven’s article is also important to consult because it examines the ethics of monitoring student’s activities as a means of curbing unacceptable behavior. This is an important element of the debate to consider as more and more students are being disciplined for violating rules, for which the only evidence is photos that have been posted online. This element illustrates the articles importance because it allows the reader to more intelligently understand the friction between a students assumed right to anonymity and the reality that they very well may be incriminating themselves when they wouldn’t have been caught otherwise. The fact that online monitoring is presented as a tool is tempered with Timm and Duven’s encouragement to use it ethically, by communicating to students in an upfront manner the fact that the monitoring of social networking sites will happen and that care will be taken to not violate the student’s ability to express themselves unnecessarily. Timm and Duven are able to communicate the balance between the student’s privacy rights and the faculty’s legal obligations by approaching the issue with the goal of protecting both parties without disregarding the impact it may have on the other.
Human Resource Issues 24 Hours a Day
Read this article
Wise, Patty A. "Tweet, Tweet, You're Fired." Employment & Labor Relations Law 7.4 (2009): 712. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.
In a recent article on the potential risks associated with social networking sites and the workplace, Patty Wise wrote on some of the issues that are facing employers. Wise explained with the rise in popularity of social networking sites employers are facing many potential legal threats that they would have never had to have dealt with before. Wise begins by giving the example of Heather Armstrong, a graphic designer who was fired after writing negative posts about her job on an anonymous blog. Her employers, Wise explained, were justified in Armstrong’s termination because she had violated the companies zero tolerance policy pertaining to “negativity.” In another example under similar circumstances Wise cites the case of Richerson v. Beckon. Richerson had been a teacher and non-evaluative faculty mentor but was demoted after she had made derogatory blog posts about a fellow employee. After the demotion Richerson sued the school board claiming that her 1st Amendment rights had been violated. Though Richerson did not win when her case went to trial, Wise essentially concluded that the school board could have been better insulated from legal trouble had they implemented an online conduct policy prior to the incident. Beyond the potential danger of “Cybersmearing” (libel and defamation that occurs online) Wise also explained how blogs can benefit employers such as looking at the blogs of job applicants. While this is can be a useful tool Wise warns employers should consider delegating the task to a “non-decision-maker” so that the employer is not exposed to information that the law prohibits in making employment decisions, such as age, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation. In addition to the number a warning signs Wise shares with employers; she encourages them to be proactive by meeting with lawyers to create clear policies that pertain to the employees’ online conduct and what is acceptable conduct on the company property such as PDA’s, cell phones, or computers. By being proactive in these areas Wise asserts that there will be much less room for interpersonal and legal issues.
Wise’s article is important to take into consideration when asking if users should trust social networking sites with their personal information because it points the conversation into the realm of the employer. Many times the focus of the debate in the realm of the work force centers on the consequences an employee has suffered due to something they had posted online. Wise’s article is important because it shifts the focus on the role of the employer and brings to light the many internet related issues that the employers have to deal with. Rather than writing an article focused on how an employee can protect himself from his employer, Wise makes it a matter of how an employer can protect himself from his employees. With the ever growing popularity of social networking sites, employers are now more responsible for what their employees say outside of work than ever before. Instead of simply painting them in a bad light, as thought they are just looking for an excuse to fire someone, Wise explains the rationale behind the tough choices many employers are having to face. By presenting employers in this sympathetic light Wise is able to communicate an often vilified element of the debate, the suggestions she makes would not only help the employer protect himself but also make him appear more forthright with his workers. At the same time this forthrightness doesn’t diminish the fact that the employer’s rules are not simply passive suggestions to be accepted or rejected, the article clearly illustrates the steps that an employer can take within the limitations of the law to protect the company. The article demonstrates the benefit of letting employee’s know the rules from the beginning as a means of keeping issues such as Richerson v. Beckon from ever happening in the first place. The article is also important because it lays out, in detail, a number of issues that lead to a “which came first” scenario in the internet centered work force, should business take the time to check on employees blogs in order to keep their reputation, only to tarnish their reputation by firing an employee over something they posted online.
Wise, Patty A. "Tweet, Tweet, You're Fired." Employment & Labor Relations Law 7.4 (2009): 712. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.
In a recent article on the potential risks associated with social networking sites and the workplace, Patty Wise wrote on some of the issues that are facing employers. Wise explained with the rise in popularity of social networking sites employers are facing many potential legal threats that they would have never had to have dealt with before. Wise begins by giving the example of Heather Armstrong, a graphic designer who was fired after writing negative posts about her job on an anonymous blog. Her employers, Wise explained, were justified in Armstrong’s termination because she had violated the companies zero tolerance policy pertaining to “negativity.” In another example under similar circumstances Wise cites the case of Richerson v. Beckon. Richerson had been a teacher and non-evaluative faculty mentor but was demoted after she had made derogatory blog posts about a fellow employee. After the demotion Richerson sued the school board claiming that her 1st Amendment rights had been violated. Though Richerson did not win when her case went to trial, Wise essentially concluded that the school board could have been better insulated from legal trouble had they implemented an online conduct policy prior to the incident. Beyond the potential danger of “Cybersmearing” (libel and defamation that occurs online) Wise also explained how blogs can benefit employers such as looking at the blogs of job applicants. While this is can be a useful tool Wise warns employers should consider delegating the task to a “non-decision-maker” so that the employer is not exposed to information that the law prohibits in making employment decisions, such as age, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation. In addition to the number a warning signs Wise shares with employers; she encourages them to be proactive by meeting with lawyers to create clear policies that pertain to the employees’ online conduct and what is acceptable conduct on the company property such as PDA’s, cell phones, or computers. By being proactive in these areas Wise asserts that there will be much less room for interpersonal and legal issues.
Wise’s article is important to take into consideration when asking if users should trust social networking sites with their personal information because it points the conversation into the realm of the employer. Many times the focus of the debate in the realm of the work force centers on the consequences an employee has suffered due to something they had posted online. Wise’s article is important because it shifts the focus on the role of the employer and brings to light the many internet related issues that the employers have to deal with. Rather than writing an article focused on how an employee can protect himself from his employer, Wise makes it a matter of how an employer can protect himself from his employees. With the ever growing popularity of social networking sites, employers are now more responsible for what their employees say outside of work than ever before. Instead of simply painting them in a bad light, as thought they are just looking for an excuse to fire someone, Wise explains the rationale behind the tough choices many employers are having to face. By presenting employers in this sympathetic light Wise is able to communicate an often vilified element of the debate, the suggestions she makes would not only help the employer protect himself but also make him appear more forthright with his workers. At the same time this forthrightness doesn’t diminish the fact that the employer’s rules are not simply passive suggestions to be accepted or rejected, the article clearly illustrates the steps that an employer can take within the limitations of the law to protect the company. The article demonstrates the benefit of letting employee’s know the rules from the beginning as a means of keeping issues such as Richerson v. Beckon from ever happening in the first place. The article is also important because it lays out, in detail, a number of issues that lead to a “which came first” scenario in the internet centered work force, should business take the time to check on employees blogs in order to keep their reputation, only to tarnish their reputation by firing an employee over something they posted online.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Oh, Be Careful Little Hands What You Post
Read this article
Randal, David, and Victoria Richards. " Facebook can ruin your life. And so can MySpace, Bebo...." Independent 10 FEB 2008: n. pag. Web. 17Apr 2010.
The article presented by David Randal and Victoria Richards is an important piece to consult as one questions whether users can trust social networking sites with their personal information because they give a number of real life examples as to how a users life could be impacted by online posts. They also place special significance on the legal impact it could have on an individual. The writers examine the possibility that rather than simply worrying about embarrassing photos posted of them users should also be concerned with what they themselves say and do as it is possible it could be used against them in a civil trial or cause them to lose their job. The primary danger Randal and Richards present is not insidious hackers who access the personal information of others, thought they do acknowledge their impact hackers have. Instead Randal and Richards assert that the true danger lies in one destroying his own reputation by controversial posts and posting photos that are inappropriate in most contexts. They give the example of a person who has had there their insurance company deny them coverage due to posts the user had made. It is the examples given of everyday people that resonate the most, illustrating how when people, as many do, assume they have complete anonymity from those in their professional realm when using a social networking site. While emphasizing personal responsibility, Randal and Richards also discuss the rationale of those who scan other people’s online profiles. They do not vilify the police, school faculty, or potential employers, presenting there searches as legitimate over site, necessary to weed out undesirable applicants and to uncover illegal behavior or destructive behaviors. Randal and Richards article also discusses a number of the all too often untrue assumptions users hold when they are posting information on social networking site. They conclude by making an appeal to using discretion as many people have found pleasure in reconnecting with friends, while a growing number are finding out that they may have set themselves up for legal trouble.
The importance of Randal and Richard’s article is illustrated in the growing reach of people to gather information on others. They explore the potential hazards that can arise when a person uses a social networking site. They ground the article in the mind of the reader by peppering examples of people who have had to suffer the consequences of posting information online. In the examples given, various groups such as potential employers and even insurance companies will use a person’s online profile as a means to disqualify a person from a job position or medical coverage. Randal and Richards also describe how this process is being adopted by current employers to keep tabs on their workers. In one example given a man was fired from his job because he had posted a picture of himself from a party he was at on a day he had called in sick. Though extreme, the examples Randal and Richards use serve as a caution to the readers that a users postings whether they display immature behavior or are seemingly innocuous, those postings may come back to haunt the user. The writers also discuss how the fear of one’s digital life coming back to haunt them has caused a number of online business’ that specialize in internet expunging have become popular. These services go through the sites chain of command from the individual all the way to the ISP controller. The majority of Randal and Richards article hinges on the fact that people, whether through naivety or apathy, assume that they have a high level of anonymity when they are posting information to a social networking site. But Randal and Richards sought to demonstrate to their readers that nothing posted online is in a vacuum. Randal and Richards article is important because it brings some of the assumptions around privacy on a social networking site to light and give reasons as to why those assumptions may be dangerous to one’s reputation. It is also important because it directs the question of whether social networking site can be trusted with their user’s information in unexpected directions namely authorities in a user’s life.
Randal, David, and Victoria Richards. " Facebook can ruin your life. And so can MySpace, Bebo...." Independent 10 FEB 2008: n. pag. Web. 17Apr 2010.
The article presented by David Randal and Victoria Richards is an important piece to consult as one questions whether users can trust social networking sites with their personal information because they give a number of real life examples as to how a users life could be impacted by online posts. They also place special significance on the legal impact it could have on an individual. The writers examine the possibility that rather than simply worrying about embarrassing photos posted of them users should also be concerned with what they themselves say and do as it is possible it could be used against them in a civil trial or cause them to lose their job. The primary danger Randal and Richards present is not insidious hackers who access the personal information of others, thought they do acknowledge their impact hackers have. Instead Randal and Richards assert that the true danger lies in one destroying his own reputation by controversial posts and posting photos that are inappropriate in most contexts. They give the example of a person who has had there their insurance company deny them coverage due to posts the user had made. It is the examples given of everyday people that resonate the most, illustrating how when people, as many do, assume they have complete anonymity from those in their professional realm when using a social networking site. While emphasizing personal responsibility, Randal and Richards also discuss the rationale of those who scan other people’s online profiles. They do not vilify the police, school faculty, or potential employers, presenting there searches as legitimate over site, necessary to weed out undesirable applicants and to uncover illegal behavior or destructive behaviors. Randal and Richards article also discusses a number of the all too often untrue assumptions users hold when they are posting information on social networking site. They conclude by making an appeal to using discretion as many people have found pleasure in reconnecting with friends, while a growing number are finding out that they may have set themselves up for legal trouble.
The importance of Randal and Richard’s article is illustrated in the growing reach of people to gather information on others. They explore the potential hazards that can arise when a person uses a social networking site. They ground the article in the mind of the reader by peppering examples of people who have had to suffer the consequences of posting information online. In the examples given, various groups such as potential employers and even insurance companies will use a person’s online profile as a means to disqualify a person from a job position or medical coverage. Randal and Richards also describe how this process is being adopted by current employers to keep tabs on their workers. In one example given a man was fired from his job because he had posted a picture of himself from a party he was at on a day he had called in sick. Though extreme, the examples Randal and Richards use serve as a caution to the readers that a users postings whether they display immature behavior or are seemingly innocuous, those postings may come back to haunt the user. The writers also discuss how the fear of one’s digital life coming back to haunt them has caused a number of online business’ that specialize in internet expunging have become popular. These services go through the sites chain of command from the individual all the way to the ISP controller. The majority of Randal and Richards article hinges on the fact that people, whether through naivety or apathy, assume that they have a high level of anonymity when they are posting information to a social networking site. But Randal and Richards sought to demonstrate to their readers that nothing posted online is in a vacuum. Randal and Richards article is important because it brings some of the assumptions around privacy on a social networking site to light and give reasons as to why those assumptions may be dangerous to one’s reputation. It is also important because it directs the question of whether social networking site can be trusted with their user’s information in unexpected directions namely authorities in a user’s life.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Privacy Concerns From Wiretapping to Status Updates
Read this article
Hodge, Matthew J. "The Fourth Amendment and privacy issues on the "new" internet: Facebook.com and MySpace.com.." Southern Illinois University Law Journal 31 (2006): 95-122
In his article Matthew J. Hodge takes examines the booming popularity of social networking sites and the possible implications they have when considering fourth amendment rights. He begins by giving an example of how nearly 50 men were identified after a post football game riot. On the day of the game only two men were arrested due to a small police presence, the rest of the men were later identified through the social networking site Facebook. Hodge then gives a brief overview of the history and features of Facebook as well as its main competitor MySpace. While both sites are based around social networks one of the early differences was that MySpace pages were once open to all users whereas, Facebook pages required the approval of the pages creator to gain access. Hodge also goes into detail in regard to the “terms of use” that the user has to consent to before they are allowed to activate an account. These terms can include how and when the Web sites may collect information from a user’s profile and computer, how the Web sites track a user’s usage, and how they use the information collected from a user’s profile. The terms also detail how the social networking sites can disclose information to a third party. Hodge then introduces the Katz Standard of the Forth Amendment whereby the Supreme Court incorporated the two-step reasonableness standard for searches and seizures. Hodge quotes Justice Harlan “there is a twofold requirement, first, that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.” This interpretation of the forth amendment is at odds the assumptions of people who use sites such as Facebook and MySpace, and Hodge goes into detail examining subsequent supreme court cases. Hodge then compares the two aforementioned sites first by their default(or pubic) settings and then by the adjusted (private) through the filter of a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Hodge closes by presenting his findings based on the various privacy settings as well as the apparent loopholes law enforcement can exploit.
If a person were to be doing research as to whether social networking sites should be trusted with their user’s personal information, the article referred to above by Matthew J Hodge would be an invaluable resource to consult because it takes the very pertinent issue of the fourth amendment and the user’s assumed online anonymity, and presents the legal issues in a clear manner. Hodge takes a methodical approach to evaluate to legal aspects of social networking sites that many of the users of these sites are completely unaware of. Hodge examines the legal basis by which a police officer can access a user’s personal page and he also gives a unique perspective by detailing how the Supreme Courts has had various interpretations of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” over the past 60 years and how various technologies have been reclassified to fit to the traditional definition. Hodges work also examines how the application of “privacy laws” can cause unexpected consequences for social network users who assume their accounts are completely private. It is through this methodical and thorough approach that Hodge’s article would be useful to a person wanting to more about the legal limitations or the lack thereof on personal data on social networking sites. The piece would also be beneficial to those wanting to answer the question above because it asserts that online social network users are continuing to assume that their online activity is somehow “off the radar” and therefore private. As the popularity of these sites continue to grow it is important for users to be aware of what of the possible. At this time in the history of online social networks Hodges article matters because it identifies how the use of these networks has challenged traditional views on internet anonymity. The article is also important to consult as a research tool as it gives the clear legal guidelines for privacy based on the 4th Amendment. Understanding these guidelines is essential in the question raised above, because knowing the extent of the actions the government can take will have a definite impact on how one answers that question.
Hodge, Matthew J. "The Fourth Amendment and privacy issues on the "new" internet: Facebook.com and MySpace.com.." Southern Illinois University Law Journal 31 (2006): 95-122
In his article Matthew J. Hodge takes examines the booming popularity of social networking sites and the possible implications they have when considering fourth amendment rights. He begins by giving an example of how nearly 50 men were identified after a post football game riot. On the day of the game only two men were arrested due to a small police presence, the rest of the men were later identified through the social networking site Facebook. Hodge then gives a brief overview of the history and features of Facebook as well as its main competitor MySpace. While both sites are based around social networks one of the early differences was that MySpace pages were once open to all users whereas, Facebook pages required the approval of the pages creator to gain access. Hodge also goes into detail in regard to the “terms of use” that the user has to consent to before they are allowed to activate an account. These terms can include how and when the Web sites may collect information from a user’s profile and computer, how the Web sites track a user’s usage, and how they use the information collected from a user’s profile. The terms also detail how the social networking sites can disclose information to a third party. Hodge then introduces the Katz Standard of the Forth Amendment whereby the Supreme Court incorporated the two-step reasonableness standard for searches and seizures. Hodge quotes Justice Harlan “there is a twofold requirement, first, that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.” This interpretation of the forth amendment is at odds the assumptions of people who use sites such as Facebook and MySpace, and Hodge goes into detail examining subsequent supreme court cases. Hodge then compares the two aforementioned sites first by their default(or pubic) settings and then by the adjusted (private) through the filter of a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Hodge closes by presenting his findings based on the various privacy settings as well as the apparent loopholes law enforcement can exploit.
If a person were to be doing research as to whether social networking sites should be trusted with their user’s personal information, the article referred to above by Matthew J Hodge would be an invaluable resource to consult because it takes the very pertinent issue of the fourth amendment and the user’s assumed online anonymity, and presents the legal issues in a clear manner. Hodge takes a methodical approach to evaluate to legal aspects of social networking sites that many of the users of these sites are completely unaware of. Hodge examines the legal basis by which a police officer can access a user’s personal page and he also gives a unique perspective by detailing how the Supreme Courts has had various interpretations of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” over the past 60 years and how various technologies have been reclassified to fit to the traditional definition. Hodges work also examines how the application of “privacy laws” can cause unexpected consequences for social network users who assume their accounts are completely private. It is through this methodical and thorough approach that Hodge’s article would be useful to a person wanting to more about the legal limitations or the lack thereof on personal data on social networking sites. The piece would also be beneficial to those wanting to answer the question above because it asserts that online social network users are continuing to assume that their online activity is somehow “off the radar” and therefore private. As the popularity of these sites continue to grow it is important for users to be aware of what of the possible. At this time in the history of online social networks Hodges article matters because it identifies how the use of these networks has challenged traditional views on internet anonymity. The article is also important to consult as a research tool as it gives the clear legal guidelines for privacy based on the 4th Amendment. Understanding these guidelines is essential in the question raised above, because knowing the extent of the actions the government can take will have a definite impact on how one answers that question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)