Courts override on line privacy statements in divorce.

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/11 ... passwords/

This is an article outlining one case as an example where people's social networking persona is being exposed against their will and how courts can easily override privacy agreements and you can be judged based on your internet world behavior.

Just interesting.

posteryoyo wrote: nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/11/15/divo...-facebook-passwords/

This is an article outlining one case as an example where people's social networking persona is being exposed against their will and how courts can easily override privacy agreements and you can be judged based on your internet world behavior.

Just interesting.

And how is this any different that other "discovery" items demanded and requested by a court? Your not immune from this sort of legal action just because you promised Facebook to follow their terms of service. You need to educate yourself on what is and isn't permissible as evidence in a court of law or else you may be quite surprised someday... and screwed. I'm constantly amazed how naive some people are.

Is your reply simply because I said "interesting"? Is that what makes me naive? Otherwise I was sharing an article and I gave a summary because someone said recently that this was the proper way to post and article.

The reason I find it interesting partly because of what you just said. 20 years ago when they were doing discovery and demanded that old love letter, you might expect the response that "it's gone" and have to move on. No more just moving on, it still exists and rules are now in place to make sure it is avail. for a long time in case it was needed, as your ISP is saving it or the carrier or anyone else. I would have also have found it interesting if 20 years ago that all communications between people was cataloged for future use. 20+ years ago we would not have even begun to understand the post office reading every letter they move and saving a copy of it, now when we send our letters through facebook, we demand and expect just the opposite.

My comments really have nothing to do with a lack of understanding of a system, even if I will admit, I don't fully understand every aspect of court stuff, like you. I have only been in a courtroom as a Juror, and hope to keep it that way.

posteryoyo wrote: Is your reply simply because I said "interesting"? Is that what makes me naive? Otherwise I was sharing an article and I gave a summary because someone said recently that this was the proper way to post and article.

The reason I find it interesting partly because of what you just said. 20 years ago when they were doing discovery and demanded that old love letter, you might expect the response that "it's gone" and have to move on. No more just moving on, it still exists and rules are now in place to make sure it is avail. for a long time in case it was needed, as your ISP is saving it or the carrier or anyone else. I would have also have found it interesting if 20 years ago that all communications between people was cataloged for future use. 20+ years ago we would not have even begun to understand the post office reading every letter they move and saving a copy of it, now when we send our letters through facebook, we demand and expect just the opposite.

My comments really have nothing to do with a lack of understanding of a system, even if I will admit, I don't fully understand every aspect of court stuff, like you. I have only been in a courtroom as a Juror, and hope to keep it that way.

Sorry... I was under the impression that you may have been "bothered" by this outcome... my mistake. And about that "proper way to post an article?" How about just saying what you want to, the way you want to and run with it. Good manners and style has never stopped me

posteryoyo wrote: nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/11/15/divo...-facebook-passwords/

This is an article outlining one case as an example where people's social networking persona is being exposed against their will and how courts can easily override privacy agreements and you can be judged based on your internet world behavior.

Just interesting.

There is NO privacy......been that way since the internet became mainstream,(how many decades now).....cell
phones(smart phones, blackberry,adroid,ect.ect.)social media and the web have made it (privacy) an OBSOLETE concept.

Like when Obama's senatorial opponent had his court sealed divorce records opened by a Obama friendly judge before the election?

I think this is very good information. Remember the story about the wife who broke into her husbands account and found he was having an affair? When she and her attorney brought it to the court she actually was the one that was threatened with a charge. What is thegalities of information in a marriage. You share so much personal info like Social Security #s. When a break up gets nasty and you suddenly want total 'privacy' that can become a he said she said type of thing also. So, the courts might just be saying that when you are married and share a computer, you cannot expect or force the privacy issue anymore. Maybe there should be a prenup for computer info.

I am guessing that is where this is going. Good find, posteryoyo, I was interested and would like to look into this further.

How many of you actually read every single online agreement? How many of you just click Agree and move on?

An attorney on Fox News even said he doesn't read all that stuff.

I guess what I'm saying is, unless you read all the agreements you accept online, you really have no leg to stand on in bashing other people who don't read every agreement before accepting.

Science Chic wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Good manners and style has never stopped me

rofllol Neither has it ever really started for you! :Whistle Sorry, but you left too good an opening there to let it lie!

it's "lay". Sorry, but you left too good an opening there for me to let it lay.