Facebook recently responded to a subpoena from Virginia by saying that it was “overly broad” because the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) protects the privacy of user accounts. The lawyer who issued the subpoena then requested a “contempt citation against Facebook” from the Virginia’s Workers Compensation Commission. Facebook argued successfully that “Courts have interpreted the ECPA to prohibit services such as Facebook from producing a non-consenting subscriber’s communications even when those communications are sought pursuant to a court order or subpoena.” This was a case were a claimant’s Facebook content contradicted the details of her claim.
For many years, “privacy rights” have been used to conceal the proceeds or methods of crime. Some businesses like Facebook aggressively support “privacy rights” to enhance their bottom line.
The article cited above, displays of how large internet services such as Facebook can make investigation and litigation impractical from time and cost standpoints. This article illustrates the type of a battle you may be forced into to get evidence in not only civil cases, but also in criminal cases such as fraud. These multimillion dollar internet companies have the money to fight the production of any court ordered information. If the word “privacy” can be attached to any issue, then these companies are indorsed by assorted “privacy rights” groups.
Yet, in Toronto, Canada, we see how Facebook seems to be acting in contravention of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) for refusing to grant Playboy model Anissa Holmes access to her own pictures or delete them from Facebook servers after shutting down her profile. This isn’t the first time Facebook has run afoul of Canada’s premier privacy law, PIPEDA.
It seems that it doesn’t matter which side of the privacy issues you’re on, it’s a good payday for lawyers.
0 Responses to “Facebook & Privacy”