• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Government Agencies and Social-Networking: What Do We Know?

December 10, 2009 by Peter Waldkirch (IPilogue Editor)

Peter Waldkirch is a second year LL.B. student at the University of Ottawa.

People are clearly displaying more and more of their personal lives for all to see on social networking websites such as Facebook. Whatever one feels about the appropriateness of some of this behaviour, it’s a fact that isn’t likely to go away any time soon. This has raised a host of issues, many of which have been discussed here at IPilogue. Here, for example is Brandon Evenson’s coverage of Prof. Jacqueline Lipton’s talk on privacy and Web 2.0. I wrote about the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s most recent annual report, which focused largely on privacy and social networks. Billy Barnes wrote about Facebook’s policy regarding deceased users, and Brian Chau has written about privacy theft and social networks. (This is just a sample – click on the “Privacy” link near the bottom of the IPilogue screen, under “Categories”, to find more!) So far, the most prominent privacy concerns have had to do with employment issues (such as pre-hiring online background checks or getting fired for posted content) or the social awkardness of negotiating new norms (the “Facebook creep”). The Electronic Frontier Foundation, however, has launched a lawsuit which hopes to shed light on what may be the most pervasive online snoop of them all: the government.

The EFF’s complaint seeks to compel several US agencies (including the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, and Department of Justice, amongst others) to comply with the EFF’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the defendants’ use of social networking sites as “investigative, surveillance, and data collection tools.” Currently, almost nothing is known about the extent of these uses and what, if any, policies guide them. The lawsuit was prompted not in response to any published policy or regulation, but rather to an emerging body of unrelated newspaper accounts of government use and surveillance of social networking sites. For example, this AP story reports on how an individual accused of fraud was located through Facebook. What’s interesting about it is that Secret Agent Seth Reeg, at least, seems to routinely use Facebook to locate suspects; the article describes the situation as, “the hold-nothing-back world of social networking, where police search Facebook photos for evidence of underage drinking and watch YouTube videos to identify riot suspects.” In another case, the FBI stormed and searched the house of a man who had used Twitter to spread the word of police movements during the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. The story “Is This Lawman Your Facebook Friend?” is particularly interesting. In it, Police Chief Edward Denmark, “said he would have no reservations about going undercover on Facebook – taking on a fake identity and tricking a suspect into accepting a police department employee as a friend, which would give police full access to the suspect’s online profile.” Although Denmark denied ever having done it before, he says police do engage in undercover Facebook conversations, and that sending a fake friend request would not require any permission or oversight.

In response to stories such as these, on October 7 and 8 the EFF sent Freedom of Information Act requests to various US agencies. None of the agencies have complied to date, far exceeding the 20 day statutory deadline. The IRS invoked the 10-day extension for “unusual circumstances”, but has taken no further action. The EFF is hoping that the lawsuit will compel the various agencies to release how social networking sites are being used, including policy statements or internal guides and manuals. Certainly there are legitimate law-enforcement uses of social networking sites – but as the non-compliance with the FOIA requests shows, right now nobody seems to know anything concrete about what those uses are or if any safeguards are being observed to ensure privacy and due process rights are being respected. Without such knowledge, no meaningful public debate can occur on the proper scope of such activities. Hopefully the EFF will be able to shed some light on the situation.

Posted in Privacy

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Manchester Manifesto questions ‘Ownership of Science’: A Renaissance or Fantasy? | Mininova bit torrent site shut down »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

IP Osgoode invites applications for summer IPilogue editors and a graphic artist/illustrator

Copenhagen Competition 2010

Writing Challenge

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Dale B. Halling on Patent Trolls and Defensive Patent Aggregation: Two sides of the same coin?
  • David Alli on “Purposive Construction”: Has certainty been compromised?
  • Essien Udokang (J.D. Candidate, Osgoode) on File-Wrapper Estoppel or Doctrine of Equivalence: Which Way to Err?
  • Essien Udokang (J.D. Candidate, Osgoode) on “Purposive Construction”: Has certainty been compromised?
  • Kevin Osborne on Maturation of the Software Industy and the Need for Software Patents
  • Geraldine Soon on Could Patent Trolls Save Innovation?
  • Hanifa Mamujee on 2010 Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Commercialization of Intellectual Property
  • Allan Rock on "Men at Work" Liable for Copyright Infringement: Kookaburra Gets the Last Laugh
  • Charanjit Sehgal on The Case of Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd.
  • Richard M on The Patentability of Business Methods in Canada: The Case of Amazon.com's 1-Click technology
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Rethinking Privacy: James Grimmelmann’s “Privacy as Product Safety”
  • Efficacy of TRIPS public health amendment raises concern at the WTO
  • Lenz v. Universal Music: US Federal Court defines narrow recoverable damages for bogus takedown notices
  • Apple v. HTC: The Tragedy of the Anticommons
  • Patent Trolls and Defensive Patent Aggregation: Two sides of the same coin?
  • Inventorship in the 21st Century
  • Advocate General Mengozzi releases opinion on Monsanto v. Cefetra
  • The Common Law of Intellectual Property: Essays in Honour of Professor David Vaver
  • Building new models for innovation and R&D requires effective collaboration
  • Some Consideration of Patents and Traditional Knowledge Implications: The 2009 UN Report on the Status of Indigenous Peoples
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (42)
  • Contracts (33)
  • copyright reform (45)
  • defamation (3)
  • events (31)
  • General (104)
  • Innovation (68)
  • Internet (96)
  • IP (556)
    • Copyright (263)
      • CD Levy (4)
      • Digital Downloads (32)
      • Digital Locks (9)
      • Fair Dealing (19)
      • Infringement (48)
      • Internet Sharing (46)
      • Literary Works (20)
      • Movies (19)
      • Music Industry (34)
      • Originality (16)
      • Ownership (38)
        • Licensees (11)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (173)
      • Cross Border Issues (29)
      • Electronic Processes (6)
      • Infringement (34)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (50)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (43)
    • Trademarks (113)
      • Domain Names (23)
      • Famous Marks (6)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (2)
      • Personality Rights (7)
  • IP Course Topic (10)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (33)
  • Open-Source (13)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (99)
    • Electronic Databases (21)
    • Human Rights Issues (15)
    • Identity Theft (5)
  • Tech Transfer (11)
  • Technology (108)
  • Telecommunications (26)
  • Uncategorized (67)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736