What we post on the Internet can last forever. With easy, free access to sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, and Myspace, it is now easier than ever before to share our thoughts, photos, and personal information online. But should whatever we post online be able to be used against us? On the one hand, we may post information with the intention of sharing aspects of our lives with our friends, but on the other, without proper privacy settings in place, anyone can access our information, including law enforcement.
This brings us to question: can what we post online be used against us in the court of law? The answer to that question right now is “no”. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is responsible for governing the surveillance of what we do online. However, this act was written in 1986, long before the Facebook era, making many believe that this act is well outdated. The New York Times 2011 article Should E-mail and Letters Have Equal Legal Protection? addresses the issue of updating this act to make it more applicable to modern technology. In 2011, it is rare for communications to occur via snail mail; hence, a lot of relevant communication for legal cases may be stored online.
Updates have been made to the act such as a fraud case considered last month in the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. The judge ruled that law enforcement cannot access e-mail messages stored online without a warrant because the Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches, which may now be extended online.
This article brings up the issue of the law lagging behind fast-changing technology. Laws take time to be passed and put in place. Technology is advancing so quickly, that it is hard for lawmakers to keep up. Recent laws associated with technology are coming into place such as the law regarding telephone usage while driving. This particular law is easy to enforce because officers can visually see drivers breaking the law. But what about incidents such as online predators? Enforcing laws against online predators is a much more difficult task because there are no online monitors. Steps towards having officers monitor online activity would be a great advancement in prevention of online illegal activity.
3 comments:
Now all I want to know is whether status updates on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc. can be used against us in the court of law. Actually, I already know that this has already taken place in some cases, but what are our protections exactly?
I apologize, but here's another tangent: is it realistic to assume that members of the jury will refrain from looking up data related to the case online now that the web and certain media outlets are more accessible than ever? I'm sure, however, that this has already been accounted for.
Hmm, good point Edris. I never realized that Jurors could now walk into a bathroom and have more than enough information on anything. I would assume, however, that their phones are taken away for the duration of the trial and most are probably complacent about not researching cases on their own. We should ask our Professor.
And as for the blog post, I know that at one point, there was a fear of planted evidence. It's super easy to hack someone's Facebook, if status updates qualified as legal documents, anyone could be made to appear to testify for anything.
That is an interesting point Josh, I never considered how easy it would be to plant something online. Just as someone could have forged a letter or document before, someone can plant evidence online. However, just as experts can tell when a signature is fake, I have faith that someone can tell when an online post or email is fishy or track where it came from.
As far as the post, I believe that anything posted on Facebook or any other public forum should fall under public domain. Emails and other private correspondence should remain private and require a warrant.
Post a Comment