Tweet
Re: facebook and negative employer posts
I don't believe the Privacy setting has its own set of Terms and Conditions which must be adhered to. They must therefore be governed by FB's T&C's.
IMO the DPA doesn't enter the equation here. There has been, to my mind, one successful prosecution in similar conditions for Invasion of Privacy and Defamation:
Defamation
On July 24, 2008, the High Court in London ordered a British cameraman to pay £22,000 (then about US$43,700) for breach of privacy and libel. He had posted a fake Facebook page purporting to be that of a former schoolfriend and business colleague, Mathew Firsht, with whom he had fallen out in 2000. The fake page claimed that Firsht was homosexual and untrustworthy. The case is believed to be the first successful invasion of privacy and defamation verdict against someone over an entry on a social-networking site.
I believe the privacy settings are generally to stop others seeing your content, but I don't believe there can be any comeback on your friends if they choose to publish your 'private' content. I don't believe the 'Privacy Settings' have legal standing. Facebook is still, I believe, under investigation over concerns about its own T&C's regarding privacy and use of data by several countries. However, their existing T&C's have been agreed to by posters when they sign up, and no separate agreement on use of data has been entered into. I think therefore, the DPA would not be relevant.
I don't believe the Privacy setting has its own set of Terms and Conditions which must be adhered to. They must therefore be governed by FB's T&C's.
IMO the DPA doesn't enter the equation here. There has been, to my mind, one successful prosecution in similar conditions for Invasion of Privacy and Defamation:
Defamation
On July 24, 2008, the High Court in London ordered a British cameraman to pay £22,000 (then about US$43,700) for breach of privacy and libel. He had posted a fake Facebook page purporting to be that of a former schoolfriend and business colleague, Mathew Firsht, with whom he had fallen out in 2000. The fake page claimed that Firsht was homosexual and untrustworthy. The case is believed to be the first successful invasion of privacy and defamation verdict against someone over an entry on a social-networking site.
I believe the privacy settings are generally to stop others seeing your content, but I don't believe there can be any comeback on your friends if they choose to publish your 'private' content. I don't believe the 'Privacy Settings' have legal standing. Facebook is still, I believe, under investigation over concerns about its own T&C's regarding privacy and use of data by several countries. However, their existing T&C's have been agreed to by posters when they sign up, and no separate agreement on use of data has been entered into. I think therefore, the DPA would not be relevant.
Comment