Re: The Officer Who Posted Too Much on MySpace [Telecom]

Except that trash talk in locker rooms almost never winds up

> preserved on a digital server somewhere, available for subpoena. > Suddenly, Officer Ettienne was being held to the words that he wrote > in cyberspace.

I find the use of a _subpoena_ for private writings rather disturbing.

Given that attitude, can any criminal defendant subpoena a cop's personal diary? Family and friends to see if he discussed the case with any of them? Details about his private life? Indeed, a defendant should be able to subpoena all sorts of things about anyone connected to his case in any way.

This reminds me of schools going after kids who write stuff on their own computers that are not connected in any way with the school. IMHO they have no right to do that.

***** Moderator's Note *****

The writings weren't private. YouTube, Facebook, and other such sites are, by design, public and available to all.

That said, the question becomes "Whose business is it"? The issue is not what he said or wrote, but rather whether he is entitled to a private life when not at work: in other words, if a police officer (or other civil servant) is ever "off duty".

This isn't about computers or social networking sites: the medium is being confused with the message. Had the officer said these things in a "cop's bar", he would have been immune from subpoenas because cops regard such places as safe havens where they may vent their frustrations with fear of being called to account.

Sooner or later, our society will have to decide that we are not entitled to demand that policemen be superhuman. So long as we expect them to behave like cardboard-cutouts of Hollywood steriotypes, we will continue to see periodic outbursts of repressed anger - remember Rodney King? - as the all-too-human men who keep a lid on the American melting pot act out their resentment at the simplistic and hypocritical way they are judged.

Full Disclosure: I was a Military Policeman in Danang and Saigon.

Bill Horne Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

Reply to
hancock4
Loading thread data ...

snipped-for-privacy@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > I find the use of a _subpoena_ for private writings rather disturbing.

And if a person accused of attacking a cop had made personal writings about how he liked to attack cops, would you find their subpoena disturbing?

In this case, the cop had apparently bragged about using illegal techniques against defendants (he says it was just hot air, making himself look tough). Frankly, the "private writings" are potential evidence of commission of crimes by the cop, though of course the cop may well turn out to be a blowhard rather than an actual criminal.

If being "superhuman" means, conducting themselves within the law, I would hope not. If it means that society should ignore the matter when a policeman brags that he has committed crimes, I would hope not.

If we have policemen who brag about activities that may be criminal, I think as a society we have to pay close attention. Even if the brags turn out to be lies.

Dave

***** Moderator's Note *****

Blowing off steam and pretending to be Rambo are hardly outside the law, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I once had a confrontation with the father of a teenage girl who had appeared at a social event in clothes somewhat more revealing than was customary during my youth. Her father took exception to my wide-eyed stare, and I responded "Here's a tip - one father to another, OK? - worry about the guys who _don't_ look"!

In other words, an officer who vents in a public forum is, IMHO, far less a danger than cops who pretend that the brutal work of policing doesn't affect their outlook on life.

Bill Horne Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

Reply to
Dave Garland

The article referred to the use of a supoena for the site database; thus my argument.

Anything intentionally publicly written is of course public and I have no objection to that use. My objection is the access of _private_ writings by subpoena.

Certainly people are entitled to a private life.

Social networking sites represent a new area because of their very wide distrubtion. As you may have heard, a kid was arrested for posting inappropriate pictures of herself on such a site, even though it was apparently restricted to her friends only. Suppose a kid, for whatever reason, flashes herself to her friends in a public park. Should she be arrested?

Reply to
hancock4

But privacy is best enjoyed in private. As Lisa points out, we're talking about his *public* life.

Bingo.

When I was doing computer security work, I dubbed this the "small-circle-of-friends illusion." Some people imagine that when they post something for the entire public to see on the Web, it's still perfectly private and no "real" people (employers, authorities, etc.) are to be allowed to see it!

Reply to
MC

There are many entities, both public and private sector, that want to exploit that "small circle of friends" illusion in order to collect personal information.

It seems most people worry about "big brother" being the government, but much data collection is conducted by and for private sector interests and it is done secretly.

For example, if a person is a troublemaker, odds are they show up on a private database of troublemakers, which is subscribed to by businesses seeking to avoid dealing with such people.

At one time if an individual or family had a variety of problems but then moved (fully legally) to a new town to make a fresh start, he or she could do so, that is, make a fresh start with the old baggage (eg a bad reputation, unresolved disputes) left far behind. But today all those troubles are cataloged in some database, and the contents are (1) easily searchable and accessed and (2) easily transmitted anywhere. So, that dispute you had with your Long Island, NY landlord will haunt you when you seek an apartment in Palo Alto, Calif.

This was forseen back in the 1970s and a US Government task force then recommended that the Social Security number be only allowed to be used for SSA and IRS purposes, nothing else. As we know, that recommendation got nowhere.

In a discussion of this issue on the roads newsgroup, several people, apparently journalists, were all for this sort of information sharing. They claimed it was "public" years ago and "public" today and computerization is irrelevent. I disagree. Years ago adverse information would lay in the bottom of a single filing cabinet, hard to find, hard to access, and hard to transmit. Computers have changed all that and that MUST be considered in public policy and privacy today.

***** Moderator's Note *****

IANALB ISTM such databases would sued out of existence in short order.

Any attorneys want to weigh in?

Bill

Bill Horne Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

Reply to
hancock4

What does IANALB and ISTM mean?

In any event, I am not a lawyer. But I suspect under the circumstances such databases are perfectly legal because consumers agreed to it or the law allows it.

When one visits a doctor, one usually must sign a form indicating the doctor and insurance company may release or obtain medical and other records as necessary. In essence the patient has given consent to release of information. Likewise, when a patient sends in or uses health insurance, an information release is required as well.

When someone rents an apt or otherwise does business with any kind of registration, there usually is a form to fill out noting credit checks and credit references and credit sharing.

I suspect credit and business interests have lobbied congress to pass laws allowing the sharing of such information, even without consent. For example, I never consented to the phone company sharing my payment history, I never filled out any paperwork ever (I called over the phone to order phone service and got it). But the phone company states it reports payment history. AFAIK there's nothing I can do about it if I want a landline phone.

Lastly, unless the law explicitly mandates privacy in a transaction, I believe (remember I'm not a lawyer) there is no expectation of privacy. In other words, if you and I have a business deal that you assume is private but I share the details with the world, that's my right. Your only recourse is if I libel or slander you, but if I tell the truth I'm ok. Business and consumers share information all the time. (Medical records are legally private but one can sign away that right).

Now obviously someone who wants to pay cash or make special arrangements can protect their privacy. But trying to buck the system is costly, cumbersome, and sometimes not even succesful.

And yes, in some cases a consumer may very well have the right to sue and a good case. But lawsuits cost a lot of money. Businesses usually have deeper pockets to fight and appeal a lawsuit than a consumer has. (If a business is broke a victory will be meaningless).

Reply to
hancock4

What databases? There aren't any databases for the purpose of ratting out people like that officer. Would you ban sites like Facebook from archiving old messages? How about Google Groups, which maintains the former DejaNews archive of Usenet posts?

Here's a little perspective.

formatting link
I suggest that anyone who wants to play the fictional-persona game do his posting under a pseudonym, and on an Internet site that will hide his identity (or doesn't know it). I also suggest that anyone reading posts that may have been made anonymously/pseudonymously, take them with a grain of salt, at least.

***** Moderator's Note *****

Although it's actually fairly hard to hide from a professional investigator's search, and almost impossible to conceal one's online identity from a government investigation, it _is_ relatively easy to conceal your identity from the kind of casual searches done by HR departments and hiring managers or headhunters, which last only until they realize that it's actually hard work and very time consuming: there are, for example, at least three different people posting to Usenet as "Bill Horne".

With the economy in freefall, and corporations able to pick the best of the best talent while keeping an electronic eye on every employee, some Internet users feel it is becoming a wise precaution to hide their identities.

There _are_ ways to do so; even to the extent of "going dark" and vanishing off the net entirely while carrying on electronic communicaitons within a limited circle of trusted friends. Programs like W.A.S.T.E., which broke new ground by showing what is possible, have whetted Internaut's appetites for access to online discussions and debates while still preserving anonymity.

In the future, parents having "the talk" with pre-pubescent teens will have to include cautions about the dangers of public displays of affection - not only with other people who may not be the best choice down the road, but also for ideas and convictions which may not stand the test of time.

Bill Horne Temporary Moderator

Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!

We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.

Reply to
John David Galt

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.