2. Protect: Outline
Do I fully understand the privacy settings on my
social networking sites?
Am I ready to take responsibility for everything I
post online – now and into the future?
Do I know the difference between public and
private space?
Is invasion of privacy ever justified?
Is the Internet public or private space?
4. Protect: Chris Tindal
“If someone has demonstrated a pattern of
bad judgment, or done or said something
highly objectionable, they should answer for
it. But one or two “gotcha” photos? Should
that really disqualify one from public service?
Ultimately it’s up to voters to decide, but I
tend to think not.”
- Chris Tindal
5. Protect: Strategies
What you can do to manage
who sees what on social
networking sites:
• Read up on Facebook’s new
approach to privacy on
ReclaimPrivacy.org
• Learn how to manage and
alter settings on Facebook’s
Guide to Privacy
Screencap courtesy of Facebook
6. Protect: Strategies
What you can do to manage
who sees what on social
networking sites:
• Always check for terms of
use and privacy guidelines
on any site you choose to
have an account with. Make
sure they work for you
Screencap courtesy of Twitter
8. Protect: Glen Clark
Yes, but..
Because Clark was a public
figure, the media
organization published the
invasive footage believing
they could prove it was in the
public interest.
Image courtesy of Kenjonbro (Flickr)
9. Protect: Strategies
• The general rule of thumb
is that what happens in
public, is public
• Your right to an
expectation of privacy is
waived in a public space
Image courtesy of JohannaClear (Flickr)
10. Protect: Strategies
• The internet is public
space
• Courts rule in terms
of ‘reasonable
expectation’
Image courtesy of Vectorportal (Flickr)
12. Resources
Tindal, Chris. “My inevitable Facebook scandal.” Chris Tindal. N.p., Web. 12 July 2012/
Private (c) Holster® (http://www.flickr.com/photos/holster/195031415/in/photostream/).
CC BY-NC- ND-C 2.0
Photographers Corner (c) Kenjonbro
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenjonbro/6341049000/in/photostream/). CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
IMG_0102 (c) JohannaClear
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/51035524905@N01/7579688702/in/photostream/). CC BY-
NC-SA 2.0
Hand Of Justice Vector Art (c) Vectorportal
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/vectorportal/5621821439/in/photostream/). CC BY 2.0
tr
Notas del editor
Chris Tindal, a young professional with (at one time) aspirations for political office, shares his views about belonging to a generation that has grown up on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. In his post, My Inevitable Facebook Scandal, he questions whether or not we should allow a person’s “momentary lapses in judgement” to ruin a career or prevent them from reaching a personal goal. He cites the 2009 Facebook scandal involving aspiring BC politician, Ray Lam, as an example. Yet we know that people are judged by their online presence – regardless of how or by whom that presence is created.
Chris Tindal, a young professional with (at one time) aspirations for political office, shares his views about belonging to a generation that has grown up on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. In his post, My Inevitable Facebook Scandal, he questions whether or not we should allow a person’s “momentary lapses in judgement” to ruin a career or prevent them from reaching a personal goal. He cites the 2009 Facebook scandal involving aspiring BC politician, Ray Lam, as an example. Yet we know that people are judged by their online presence – regardless of how or by whom that presence is created.
In 1999 police investigated then British Columbia Premier, Glen Clark, on charges of fraud. A television crew on the street outside of Clark’s home took footage through an open window of Clark’s house as it was being tossed by police with Clark in view. Taking images from a public space, (the sidewalk), of a private individual in private space, (Clark’s kitchen), is an invasion of privacy. The use of the footage was controversial. Under normal circumstances this would be a standard invasion of privacy according to the British Columbian Privacy Act. However, as Clark was a public figure, the media organization published the invasive footage believing they could prove it was in the public interest.
In 1999 police investigated then British Columbia Premier, Glen Clark, on charges of fraud. A television crew on the street outside of Clark’s home took footage through an open window of Clark’s house as it was being tossed by police with Clark in view. Taking images from a public space, (the sidewalk), of a private individual in private space, (Clark’s kitchen), is an invasion of privacy. The use of the footage was controversial. Under normal circumstances this would be a standard invasion of privacy according to the British Columbian Privacy Act. However, as Clark was a public figure, the media organization published the invasive footage believing they could prove it was in the public interest.
In public space you wave your right to an expectation of privacy. You and your subjects are pretty much fair game. News publications are allowed to use images of private citizens in public space without permission. If you sell your images for non-news purposes, you need to ask for permission.
When it comes to privacy, courts rule in terms of ‘reasonable expectation.’ This means that if you post pictures of yourself drunk at a party on-line, you cannot claim that a media organization who uses these photos violated your privacy. The internet is public space. When you post online, you wave your right to privacy. Most privacy laws in the democratic world accord that the invasion of privacy can be justified if it is found to be in the interest of the public good.
