Blog #5 110107 - “MySpace…more like everyone’s space”

If I had a nickel for every time I heard something to the affect of “Did you see that comment I left you on [insert social networking site here]?”, I’d be cruising my speedboat around the Lake of the Ozarks without a care in the world, thinking about the riches in my Swiss bank account.

Indeed, it seems that social online networking sites like MySpace and Facebook are here to stay (much like the Internet revolution that spawned them). And the chief opposition I have to these types of sites if that of a false notion of privacy. As I alluded to in my previous blog, in my opinion nothing (and I mean NOTHING) on the Internet is private [#1]. That being said, this false sense of privacy enjoyed by those who use networking sites will actually be detrimental to that individual in the long run. First, I will examine the notion of privacy in a historical sense. Then I will take that Constitutional verification and apply it to the modern day musings of Internet privacy (or lack thereof). While individuals of all ages can and do use social networking sites, for the purposes of this dissertation I will concentrate on the affects of Internet privacy on high school and college-aged adolescents.

Two well known cases concerning privacy and the First Amendment support my viewpoint. The first is Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company (Pennsylvania, 1996) [#2]. In those proceedings, the court ruled that provocative and aggressive e-mails [#3] sent by an employee (Smyth) of the Pillsbury Company to his supervisor were not considered private. Thus, the Smyth’s termination from the company as a result of those e-mails was justified. Smyth argued the intrusion of privacy tort [#4, see the intrusion section], arguing that Pennsylvania common law prohibits the termination of an employee “in violation to the employee’s right to privacy.” He also makes the point that the supervisor with whom he was conversing with assured him that their communication on the e-mail medium was indeed private.

However, the court decreed that the e-mail system maintained by the Pillsbury Company does not come with an expectation of privacy. Moreover, Smyth voluntarily professed his opinions (as opposed to the company seeking out to find his information) and thus cannot contend that his privacy was intruded upon. In fact, Pillsbury’s desire to keep such “unprofessional and inappropriate comments or even illegal activity” off their e-mail server trumps Smyth’s supposed confidentiality.

The second landmark case that ties in with this subject is Tonya Barnhart v. Paisano Publications (Maryland, 2006) [#5]. While this case does not involve an electronic medium, it nonetheless lends itself to an attitude of cautiousness when it comes to online networking sites. In the proceedings, Tonya Barnhart sued Easyriders magazine [#6] after they published a topless photo of her without her consent. Barnahrt alleged the privacy torts of false light and appropriation [#4, see the false light and appropriation sections], claiming that the photo “distorted her true appearance.” In general, Barnhart is not the type of person that goes around exposing herself for kicks.

Yet again, however, the court disagreed. They first pointed out that Batrnhart’s exposure occurred in a clearly public place and manner and thus could not be considered private. In regards to appropriation, the court ruled that “no one has the right to object merely because his name or his appearance is brought before the public.” Consequently, publications (such as a newspaper or Easyriders magazine) are not predisposed to account for every name or likeness it publishes.

How do these cases tie in to sites like MySpace and Facebook? Simply put, personal information posted online is in no way private and the poster call fall victim to a plethora of woes because of it. The Smyth v. Pillsbury case is a striking example of just that. And while the Barnhart v. Paisano case was not in the digital realm, its lessons about photographs still hold true. If unflattering information (specifically, photos of illegal activities) surfaces on the Internet, the decisions of potential employers of that person will most likely be swayed to the negative side [#7]. What is more, tech gurus are pioneering ways to take “digital snapshots” of items that were once on someone’s personal page. So Facebookers beware: something you delete could still come back to haunt you.

And what I personally believe to be the most prevalent “trap” of social networking sites is that one’s susceptibility to online predators is greatly at risk [#8]. Let’s take a MySpace page of a friend of mine (whose name or URL I will not reveal for her protection) and calculate just how much she is at risk. While she never states personal information such as her name, address, and phone number, she does

state the name of her High School, which narrows her identity from thousands of teenage girls to about 200.
state her High School class, which narrows the number from 200 to about 40.
state that she is a Varsity basketball player, which cuts the number from 40 to about five.

Combine this with the fact that she posts pictures of herself of her page and it is painfully obvious how at risk she is to be accosted by a predator.

Show this blog to teenagers who live by MySpace and Facebook and they will tell you that there are filters and safeguards in place that allow only certain people to view their personal information. To that I respond by asking: how much do you really trust those “certain people”? What’s to say they don’t take what they see and post it elsewhere for the masses to scrutinize? Or on a simpler premise…what’s to say they don’t share the information they see right then and there with anyone in their general vicinity?

To all these points I say again what I’ve already heartily stated earlier in this blog: Nothing is private on the Internet; so take great heed when typing to your heart’s content. Otherwise the reputation ruined may be your own.



#1: http://tditman.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-4-102507-this-blog-is-not.html
#2: http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Smyth_v_Pillsbury.html
#3: Smyth threatened to, in reference to some fellow employees in the sales management division, “kill the backstabbing bastards” and called a company party the “Jim Jones Koolaid affair.” For an explanation of the latter threat, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm
#4: http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/privacytorts.html
#5: http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/opinions/Opinions/barnhartopinion.17oct06.pdf
#6: http://www.easyriders.com/about/
#7: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/166287/potential_employers_and_myspace_use.html
#8: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11165576