Judge Demands Disclosure of Private Facebook Photos

[Parshooter]

At first I thought aw crap the government is just screwing over the young population like they have before.

Now I just think that she is an idiot equal to the people showing of joints they are rolling.

The most interesting thing to come out of this article was finding out what the British Columbia flag looks like.............the colonies sure do have some weird ideas.

We're British and the land where the sun set on the empire until it reached Hawaii more so when Hawaii stopped being British. I've never liked it but until the baby boomers die or they lose interest in the royals there will never be a push to drop the British heritage.

 

[Akisa]

Who needs privacy when you have nothing to hide?

Idiot.

Sure, let me get access to your house and bank account to make sure you're not doing anything illegal.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Dear people in positions of power:
Either learn about computers, games and technology, or leave them alone.
Signed,
The Internet

You seem to be implying that if the judge knew more about Facebook she would have come to a different conclusion, and I can't understand how you ended up there. Care to explain?

Well, I dont know about it from a legal point of view, but as far as I'm concerend those pictures are property of the owner that just happen to be digital. So it could have been kept out of the court if she said so. They were marked as private, wich I would say is clear enough indication that she didn't want everyone to see them. Some people think that if it's on the internet, it's public domain, but that's not true.

 

[Baldr]

These just represent my opinions: The internet is mass media and by such anything that is posted on the internet becomes public. That maybe to much, so I took a much narrower view: Anything you share on the internet with more than one person is public. Email, google docs, facebook messages for the most part private. Facebook status posts, pictures etc public.

 

[Lucem712]

Eh, why can't they just get a warrant? Can't the court get access to your e-mails and all that, even take your hard-drive as evidence?

It wouldn't be a big deal if they took a photo-album, this is basically the digital equivalent.

 

[razer17]

She is suing them. She has to prove that she is being affected badly. The burden of proof is on her to show that she IS having issues due to the accident, it is not on the defence to prove that she isn't. Therefore she has to disclose the photo's or drop the suit, since they hold vital evidence as to whether she truly is being impaired.

 

[Jodah]

Eh, why can't they just get a warrant? Can't the court get access to your e-mails and all that, even take your hard-drive as evidence?

It wouldn't be a big deal if they took a photo-album, this is basically the digital equivalent.

This was in Canada so applying US law rules doesn't work. Canada may have something similar, that I do not know but going by the fact that this is (apparently) news I would say such is not the case.

 

[Pyrian]

I don't think "right to privacy" was conceived to preclude a warrant (or equivalent judicial order).

 

[MorganL4]

Is it just me or do the reasons to NOT USE facebook seem to increase on a daily basis? I mean I have a facebook, but I have not accessed the thing since 2008, with the exception of a month ago when I got a message from facebook asking if it was me who logged in from China, so I went in and changed the password to something much much stronger, and then proceeded to not use it again.

There is a question: Does Canada have an equivalent to our US Constitution's 4th Amendment? IF so what is the wording?

 

[renegade7]

Wait wait waitwaitwait...since when is a court order to disclose 'private' (obviously when you have nearly 1000 facebook friends that can see them they are anything but private but still) photos anything new?

1st common sense Facebook rule: even if there is only a single person whom you would not want to see a picture or post, don't upload it.

2nd common sense Facebook rule: only add your friends, that is people whom you are okay sharing details of your life

3rd common sense Facebook rule: why the fuck would you ADD someone you are suing? No shit they will try to find evidence on your page.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Who needs privacy when you have nothing to hide?

Idiot.

Sure, let me get access to your house and bank account to make sure you're not doing anything illegal.

if it's relevant to the case, then yeah, that's perfectly fine.

ever heard of tax dodgers?

same thing.

OT: as long as it's relevant to the case, as this CLEARLY is, then i don't see a problem with it, she just knows that she is caught and is doing what she can to try and block them from getting that substantial evidence.

 

[DracoSuave]

Let's extend this to a more tangible example.

If I create photos of myself, and only hand them to people I desire, it is an invasion of my privacy if those photos are stolen by someone else and published to people I do not desire.

However, if those photos depict something relevant to a court case, than those photos CAN be subpoenad as evidence in a civil or criminal trial (provided proper jurisprudence etc.) It's not a violation of privacy, it's EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL.

Sorry, sir, I set those human remains to 'Private' so the courts can't look at them.

Same thing with Facebook--you're publishing photos, and you are controlling distribution, however if those photos depict something relevant to a court case... evidence in a trial, then you're damn rights the courts can subpoena that. They can subpoena the camera you took them with even if you never actually publish the pictures!

To think otherwise is rediculous. This is a legal proceeding, those are evidence, it is allowed within that context provided proper jurisprudence is followed.

[quote="Jodah" post="7.373553.14446261"This was in Canada so applying US law rules doesn't work. Canada may have something similar, that I do not know but going by the fact that this is (apparently) news I would say such is not the case.[/quote]

We do, but in this case it's a court subpoenaing the evidence (it's not a search of premises as the evidence is published and they're not searching private property for it but seeking the cooperation of agencies to attain it. A warrant allows you to search for evidence, a subpoena requires someone to go get it for you.)

 

[Berenzen]

There is a question: Does Canada have an equivalent to our US Constitution's 4th Amendment? IF so what is the wording?

Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

However, this court order is not considered unreasonable search or seizure, as the photos are relevant to the case.

 

[coolkirb]

Do they have a valid warrant to look at these photos? Because as far as I know, that's all they'd need. If they can search a person's home without their permission under the right circumstances, then their Facebook account shouldn't be any different. Especially if they already have testimony from people who can already see the photos as to what they contain.

The Canadian Legal System is a bit different then the US, namely that things obtained illegaly by Cops are not allways thrown out of court and the Judge may accept them.

 

[AT God]

I hate social networking so I am going to try to stay objective.

As the plaintiff, the burden of proof is on you, so if you refuse to disclose the photos, I think the court should be able to throw the case out. They don't have to violate her "privacy" but they shouldn't have to work a case when evidence is being withheld by the plaintiff.

Judge Judy should have tried this case, she would have resolved this in 10 minutes and also made fun of an idiot on television instead of an internet post.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

"Well, as you can see detective, I have installed locks on my doors and curtains on my windows. Therefore, you cannot enter and search for these alleged 'bodies'. It would be a violation of my privacy."

If you don't want the world to know you did it:

1. Don't do it.
2. Don't take pictures of it.
3. Don't put said pictures on the internet.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Who needs privacy when you have nothing to hide?

Idiot.

Sure, let me get access to your house and bank account to make sure you're not doing anything illegal.

If by access, you mean look at without touching or interfering then go right ahead.

 

[grigjd3]

It seems disingenuous to claim permanent injuries while refusing to show photos that may support or refute the claim. Anyhow, privacy is an iffy basis here. If you are doing something out in public and you end up in someone's picture, is that an invasion of privacy? If someone witnesses me going for a run in a city park, that's certainly not an invasion of privacy. Where is the distinction between that and a photo drawn? Now these photos which have been shared with almost 900 people are considered private?

 

[RandV80]

She is wrong, the court is right. Such photos are relevant to a court case, and access to them does not constitute a violation of privacy.

Yeah pretty much this. There are times when you have to hand over private information, and that is when a proper court order has been obtained. The problem effecting most online privacy rights these days is that law enforcement, government, and corporations are trying to implement rules that forgo this longstanding standard of checks and balances.

The FBI or RCMP can actually listen to your phone calls, but first they need to go before a judge and explain their justification for doing so. Sometimes that will let the criminal get away while the cops are tied up with paperwork, but it's set that way for a reason.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

In this particular case I don't see a problem. Those photographs can be considered a decisive evidence in a court case like that.