LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-27-2018, 12:42 AM   #1
RandomTroll
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 971

Rep: Reputation: 161Reputation: 161
A court rules that it can look at your social media


'Social media privacy argument tenuous in court'

Quote:
'In June, 2011, a Manhattan interior decorator named Kelly Forman went for a ride on a horse belonging to her friend Mark Henkin. Henkin was apparently wealthy. Not only did he keep horses, but he hired staff to look after them. The ride turned tragic when one of Forman's stirrups broke off the saddle and she fell to the ground. She sued.'
.
.
.
'Earlier this month, New York's highest court ruled against Forman, requiring her to disclose all photos she posted to Facebook. The key point for the court was that she claimed she could no longer engage in the activities she previously enjoyed and had difficulty using a computer. It was reasonable, the court concluded, to suppose her Facebook feed might contain a record of her activities while also revealing her skill with the computer. Therefore, Henkin was entitled to poke around her account for evidence to use against her. If you're ever involved in litigation and tempted to post to social media, remember Kelly Forman and think twice.'
https://www.abqjournal.com/1138111/s...-in-court.html
 
Old 02-27-2018, 03:00 AM   #2
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 9,349

Rep: Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980
Good I'm not busy posting on social media like the dumb blond POTUS😀
 
Old 02-27-2018, 04:17 AM   #3
syg00
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Distribution: Lots ...
Posts: 17,083

Rep: Reputation: 2610Reputation: 2610Reputation: 2610Reputation: 2610Reputation: 2610Reputation: 2610Reputation: 2610Reputation: 2610Reputation: 2610Reputation: 2610Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott McNealy 1999
"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.
Yes, last millenium !!!.
 
Old 02-27-2018, 07:22 AM   #4
keefaz
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 6,230

Rep: Reputation: 713Reputation: 713Reputation: 713Reputation: 713Reputation: 713Reputation: 713Reputation: 713
What was the point to share privacy over network anyway?
 
Old 02-27-2018, 07:49 AM   #5
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170
I would have to agree with the Honorable Court: the premise is reasonable, and she had after all publicly disclosed this information, at least to some people. I think that it's appropriate to allow the defendant to see what she had shared with others for the purpose of defending himself against her allegations.

I would not necessarily feel the same way in a criminal case, or in a civil case where the party is the plaintiff.

P.S. In many States, such as both Tennessee and Georgia, this case would have been barred since participants in equine activities are specifically aware that such activities may result in injury or death and may not sue the horseman. Of course, this is an "exculpatory clause" that can be bypassed. But I'm not sure that merely falling to the ground because a stirrup broke ... why didn't she just pick herself up off the ground and say, "crap! that hurt!" and help her embarrassed friend fix the thing ... would be considered grounds for litigation. (He was, after all, wealthy ...)

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 02-27-2018 at 07:52 AM.
 
Old 02-27-2018, 07:52 AM   #6
Trihexagonal
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2017
Location: Land of 1000 Nights
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris
Posts: 165

Rep: Reputation: 113Reputation: 113
To date, the Earth has continued its rotation without the inhabitants knowing what I consumed for breakfast, and will no doubt continue to do so.

Apparently, not everyone thinks it will...
 
Old 02-27-2018, 03:06 PM   #7
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,945

Rep: Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843
While that is true, Trihexagonal, it would rightly no longer apply if what you ate for breakfast was from a restaurant whom you were suing for whatever reasons associated with that meal. Then, remarks you may have made regarding that experience might be germane to a case that YOU made Public and Legal by bringing suit and the restaurant should have the right to question your friends and family about any conversations that were specifically about that meal. That should include any correspondence as well whether on paper, in photos or on the Webz.
 
Old 02-27-2018, 05:56 PM   #8
jefro
Moderator
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,546

Rep: Reputation: 2777Reputation: 2777Reputation: 2777Reputation: 2777Reputation: 2777Reputation: 2777Reputation: 2777Reputation: 2777Reputation: 2777Reputation: 2777Reputation: 2777
If you are stupid enough to get on a strange horse (or any dangerous sport device) and not check it's tack then you may expect to fall off.
M. Dell fell off one of his horses so wealth has little to do with danger.

If you are stupid enough to claim to the court that you can't work or play like you used to and go on and post stuff online then the court ought to throw you out.

I work for a large employer. We get idiots all day long claiming they can't do this or that. After a while they get photographed doing exactly what they claim they can't.

Stupids.

Last edited by jefro; 02-28-2018 at 05:07 PM.
 
Old 02-28-2018, 09:04 AM   #9
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170
Even in the case of criminal proceedings it has been ruled that comments which a defendant made in a public place are not protected by the Constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Even if the comments were made to a limited subset of the public. Such comments, e.g. on social media, clearly were not made "with the expectation of privacy," but with the exact opposite expectation and purpose. So long as the party making the posts are the (stupid ...) defendant himself, they are not protected.

If you don't want someone to know, keep your mouth shut.

The "Darwin Awards™" are an ongoing testimony to just how stupid (and, creative) people can be. They don't just die – they work at it.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 02-28-2018 at 09:06 AM.
 
Old 02-28-2018, 09:33 AM   #10
rtmistler
Moderator
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: MA, USA
Distribution: MINT Debian, Angstrom, SUSE, Ubuntu, Debian
Posts: 7,147
Blog Entries: 12

Rep: Reputation: 2633Reputation: 2633Reputation: 2633Reputation: 2633Reputation: 2633Reputation: 2633Reputation: 2633Reputation: 2633Reputation: 2633Reputation: 2633Reputation: 2633
This is not necessarily about court rulings negating privacy.

The whole basis for this person's lawsuit is that they have been damaged where they can no longer effectively use a computer, or perform certain physical activities.

The claimant says they would take several hours to send a simple email, and that they suffer from traumatic brain injury.

TBI is very serious, and one would think there are extensive treatment records, as well as plenty of evidence to indicate that they really are impaired.

Meanwhile the side for the person being sued is following the due diligence to make sure that the claimant is not a total hypocrite. The court agreed that their requests were reasonable.

I feel that the final tagline in the story should instead say, "I you happen to file a lawsuit claiming you are impaired with using a computer, don't be surprised that the courts will agree that your history of recent computer use is relevant to the case."
 
Old 02-28-2018, 06:15 PM   #11
Trihexagonal
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2017
Location: Land of 1000 Nights
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris
Posts: 165

Rep: Reputation: 113Reputation: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
While that is true, Trihexagonal, it would rightly no longer apply if what you ate for breakfast was from a restaurant whom you were suing for whatever reasons associated with that meal
I'm sure you're aware that is not the case in my estimation of 99.99% of the cases when people post such trivia on social media.

If it were to advise someone of their suit against a restaurant where they contracted food poisoning or the like it would be of useful purpose and a different story.

Not to offend people who post what they had for breakfast on Fakebook or whatever. This is as close to social media as I get and I value my privacy more than that.
 
Old 02-28-2018, 06:35 PM   #12
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,945

Rep: Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843Reputation: 1843
Agreed, Trihexagonal. Much to my family's and sometimes my own chagrin, I don't do Facebook. I might actually consider paying a fee to have all the facility to keep up with all my family IF that meant security and privacy were respected.
 
Old 02-28-2018, 11:34 PM   #13
Trihexagonal
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2017
Location: Land of 1000 Nights
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris
Posts: 165

Rep: Reputation: 113Reputation: 113
This is really no different than a person collecting Social Security Disability for a claimed back injury being surveilled to see if they can load a truck. Just an advanced use of technology to do it.

And while illegal to do so in some states, your social media content is already up for grabs by potential employers:

Access to Social Media Usernames and Passwords

Or anyone with malicious intent.
 
Old 03-01-2018, 02:50 PM   #14
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170
The Internet has certainly perfected the art of blabbing, and of thereby shooting yourself in the foot.

("Clue 'ya. Nobody really cares what you had for breakfast. And, they don't want to see a video of you eating it.")
 
Old 03-02-2018, 01:49 AM   #15
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 9,349

Rep: Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980Reputation: 980
Nobody else might remember life before television. You could make an idiot of yourself but it not internationally. People became friends with their neighbours. Books were a great pastime and you read loads. Every house had its reference books (e.g. Atlas, Dictionary, Detailed road maps, & Bible), better off houses had encyclopedias,and everyone could entertain by playing music, singing, or telling stories.

We only got local TV in Ireland in 1961. Before that, it was possible to poach faded signals from the English stations but you needed an outdoor aerial.

What has suffered is personality, concentration span, and learning. When you couldn't stream trash, you read the Bible and encyclopedias, You read the classics in the house. And you learned how to tell a good story.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who's Using Social Media And What Are You Using It For? JockVSJock General 22 02-22-2016 01:20 PM
LXer: Supreme Court shoots down two more rules put in place by top patent court LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-03-2014 08:41 AM
LXer: Social networks cannot be forced to filter content, EU court says LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-17-2012 03:50 PM
Irish court rules in favour of ISPs in piracy case Jeebizz Linux - News 0 10-12-2010 09:48 AM
Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Microsoft RodWC General 5 05-04-2007 03:44 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:51 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration