Tag: privacy

A Response to “Blurred Lines and the Right to Privacy”

In “Blurred Lines and the Right to Privacy”, Huffington Post writer Debbie Hines urges people to emotionally connect more with issues of online privacy violation.  Ms. Hines boldly claims that the only way she believes action against online privacy violations will be taken is when we feel as emotionally violated in regards to online privacy as we would if someone were to break into our own homes—and she certainly seems to think we should, given that she states that “our online personal data by far out values any possessions in our homes.”  She also invokes the Civil Rights movement as another example of a situation where serious action will only be taken when the public becomes emotionally involved.  The author’s central inquiry is in regards to what will be the emotional stimulus that will ultimately move us in the direction to take action and protect against online privacy violations?

While I agree that online privacy is important in respect to information that is on the internet without your knowledge and consent, I have to disagree with the general tone of Ms. Hines article.  To equate the emotional violation that is online privacy invasions to that of a person’s home being ransacked by burglars is slightly outrageous to me.  Though I do not doubt that at least an equivalent amount of both financial and emotional harm could be achieved through both kinds of violations, the way we have been taught to view the internet makes this an incongruous comparison.  The internet is premised on the notion of open access to information; it is a forum that we all utilize when seeking out any imaginable type of information.  While it’s clear that the author is not referring to limiting this laissez-faire informational exchange, her opinions on such privacy violations seem to negate the general premise, purpose, and intent of the internet.

Furthermore, the expectation of privacy issue needs to be addressed.  In our society, we are taught to view our activity on the internet through a distrustful lense.  We are continually warned of the pitfalls that come from simply ignoring the privacy settings on social media accounts, let alone the far more damaging threats of identity theft, both in regards to our personal, professional, and financial lives.  While I do believe that it would be nice to feel a sense of security on the internet, I just do not think that the public’s expectation of privacy on the internet is particularly high, nor should it be; and it is certainly not near the level of privacy expectation one would have in one’s own home.  To feel as secure on the internet would be dangerously naïve, particularly in light of some of the egregious and highly publicized internet privacy violations that the author refers to.

So while I am in no way belittling Ms. Hines proposition, I think that until the internet is a truly safe place, it would be more prudent and practical to instead focus on taking defensive measures to protect ourselves and our online information.

Social Media Privacy v. Regulation

How much access should employers and schools have over their employees and students? Bill L.D. 1194, currently pending in the Maine legislature, would restrict employers access to employees social media accounts, as well as the accounts of elementary, high school, and college students. The bill was originally introduced in March 2013 but was carried over into 2014.

 

One potential problem with this bill lies in the financial industry. The Financial Industry Regulation Authority (FINRA), an oversight group that licenses brokers and regulates the securities industry, requires securities firms to oversee their employees business communications, specifically including social media accounts. If, for instance, a securities broker messaged a client on Twitter or solicited clients via LinkedIN, the securities firm would be obligated under FINRA’s directives to record that communication. The goal of this is to maintain a regulated financial industry where no “secret” communications or deals are being commenced.

 

A securities industry trade group, the Securities Industry Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), has filed a letter with the Maine legislature asking them to write an exception into the law for securities companies to comply with FINRA and other regulatory directives. They believe that many employees use a personal social media account for both personal AND business related goals and that the employers must have access to those accounts. Illinois enacted a similar law this past summer, with exceptions for the broker-dealer employers

 

This shows FINRA and the securities brokers take social media accounts seriously and showcase how they play a role in the securities trade. It is a thin line between privacy and 1st amendment rights on one side, and the need to regulate an important industry in American economics. It is also interesting to note that without the exception,  the law in Maine may create an unbalanced securities industry and force brokers to choose between following FINRA directives and state law.

In this case, I believe the employee’s privacy is not something that should be expected. If using social media, it makes sense to create a personal account and a business account. The employer, however, must trust the employee is not using their personal account for business purposes.

Source: Bloomberg Law: Securities 

Boxer Curtis Woodhouse Tracks Down Twitter Troll, Shows Up at His House

Reading this article made me consider the legality of “doxxing” a person.  For those unfamiliar “dox” is an internet slang word for finding and releasing personally identifiable information, such as their real name, address, or account information. In this instance, I am unsure how he got the person’s name and address, but clearly he had intentions of confronting the person.  This could have resulted in a violent altercation.  A couple of questions that came to mind:

Can a person be liable (criminally or civilly)  for “doxxing” someone who then suffers harm as a result of being “doxxed”?

Should the act of “doxxing” be considered a tort?

In some states, you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person.  “Private facts” refers to information about someone’s personal life that has not been previously revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. However, the law protects you if you publish something that is already publicly available.

Some states also consider it a tort to unreasonably intrude upon the seclusion or solitude of a person.  In order to bring an action for tort of privacy invasion based upon the concept of intrusion on the seclusion of another, the following elements must be established (Doe v. High-Tech Inst., Inc., 972 P.2d 1060 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998)):

-that defendant committed an unauthorized intrusion or prying into plaintiff’s seclusion;
-that intrusion was highly injurious and objectionable to a reasonable man;
-that matter intruded on was private; and
-that intrusion resulted in agony and suffering to plaintiff.

It seems from this that a person can be held liable for “doxxing” someone if that person is harmed, or if the information released is not newsworthy or publicly available.

Thoughts?

Skip to toolbar