Earlier this month, as everyone who uses the site (hopefully) knows, Facebook changed its privacy options in a big way. I’m not going to do a breakdown of all of the changes—follow the link for a list of some. But the switch has brought up some issues that I’ve been thinking about for a while, and that will only become more and complicated as we all continue to increase our online activity and visibility.
“Social networking” can be fun, useful, or just a big waste of time. Whatever you think of it, it’s here to stay so no point lamenting. But as social networking sites like facebook become more complex and offer users more “options,” there’s been a number of ways in which the sites become less and less safe (and I’m talking real, physical safety, and emotional safety) for rape survivors, people with abusive former partners or stalkers, and regular folks who don’t think that sexual violence is hilarious. Over the years we’ve seen the “pro-rape” facebook group at a university in Australia, the “rape humor” pieces of flare you could post on your friends’ facebook pages, and the particularly frustrating function on Facebook, LinkedIn, and other sites that “suggests” people in your extended network (friends of friends and the like) for you to add to your network, which can mean that one day you login to your social network site of choice to find the face of a person who assaulted you and the casual suggestion from a website that you “poke” them or send them a message.
That in itself is horrifying enough. But imagine if you were trying to remain hidden from a former partner or a rapist (while also taking part in the internet like all of your friends) and couldn’t? Facebook’s new privacy settings make that a very serious reality. Though you can make it so that you are not searchable on facebook, you no longer have the option of keeping your list of friends private, which means any friend of your friends can find you. From the above-linked Gawker piece:
Your friends list, too, is considered public information. Though you can remove it from your profile, you can’t keep friends of friends from seeing it. They just have to pull up one of your friends’ friend list, click you name, and view your friends list.
Writes one reader: “Many of us are concerned, seeing as how there are thousands of people faced with the threat of stalkers.” Another, right on cue:
“I have been dealing with a deranged, threatening stalker… There is no way of keeping your Friend list private… I have been obsessively reading about this topic [overall Facebook privacy]… To say I’m outraged is an understatement.”
Indeed, people should be outraged, as this is an incredibly frightening issue for many. But so far there are no signs of change.
Further complicating this privacy mess has been the attempt to discredit reports of rape or sexual assault based on the victim’s facebook activity. One example from an English case in October of 2008:
[The defendant's lawyer] tried to persuade a judge to be lenient by showing pictures posted on the social networking site of the woman laughing and smiling at a fancy dress party in the years since the rape.
Colin McCarraher, defending, told Reading Crown Court last week: ‘What we have is a person who has post traumatic stress but is quite capable of going out and having a good time at a fancy dress party.’
I don’t think I need to explain how utterly absurd and fucked up that is. But that hasn’t stopped folks from trying similar defenses. This week, a judge in Lynchburg, Virginia refused the defense’s request to access the “facebook records” of the plaintiff in a sexual assault case. In the Lynchburg case, a female student from Liberty University accussed a male professor of assault.
The woman called police after visiting Moon’s office on April 21 to finish taking a test. She testified in an earlier hearing that she accepted Moon’s offer for a brief massage that day and fell asleep during it. She testified that she found him touching her inappropriately when she awoke…
His lawyer, Randy Trost, has argued that the woman sought favors from Moon because she was doing poorly in the course and that the touching was consensual. Those favors included the April 21 incident in which she was given extra time to complete a test.
Trost told the judge Tuesday that information she posted and exchanged on her Facebook account would show she spent the weekend before the test at the beach with friends, not diligently studying as she testified in June. He said her Facebook page would also show her back was not bothering her because she had gone rock climbing.
Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Rebecca Wetzel opposed the subpoena, saying the woman’s Facebook records were akin to postal service mail, e-mail and a journal since she had taken steps to make the information private, not publicly accessible. Wetzel said Trost could question witnesses during the trial if he could find someone to say the woman had been at the beach or had been rock climbing.
She also said the attempted invasion of the woman’s privacy was an effort to make the judicial process so intolerable that she would give up.
Lynchburg Circuit Court Judge Mosby Perrow said Moon’s request for all of the woman’s Facebook records from September 2008 until present was too broad. He said he would allow Trost to file a more specific request for the records.
I would add that the defense seems to be making a case that smears the plaintiff rather than proves the innocence of the defendant. I’m glad to see that the judge in this case ruled against the use of private facebook info…for the moment. At some point a case like this is going to make it to a higher court, and I’ll be watching to see how it plays out. I worry though that our legal system is very far behind our technology—as I think I have voiced here before—and in the meantime assault survivors are going to find themselves plagued by information they thought was private, and people they did not want to ever find them.
