Privacy law is unique and exceptional for many reasons. People often assume that they have a constitutional right to privacy, but that is factually incorrect. This right is not explicitly enumerated anywhere, though courts have inferred the right based on the goals and execution of parts of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth amendments to the Constitution. So there are legal grounds that protect a person’s right to a reasonable amount of privacy. However, these rights have limits. One of the areas of law where these limits are tested regularly relates to internet and specifically social network use.

Recent years have shown that a person’s name is not protected by the right to privacy when copyright owners detect piracy from that person’s web address. In fact, the ability to hide behind the anonymity of internet and cell phone use has been steadily declining for a decade. The Patriot Act further stressed our privacy, facilitating still-unclear levels of surveillance of our email activity for the purposes of national security. Most people want to protect their identity and financial information from theft as well as be able to engage in embarrassing activities online without experiencing public exposure, but situations have arisen repeatedly in the past decade suggesting that the right to privacy is a very fickle thing that may exist in relation to one issue and then be repressed in the interest of other superseding concerns in the next situation.

Social networks, and especially Facebook, have become a topic of great interest regarding privacy law. Because people share so much of what they are doing on Facebook, the messages that they post and photos they upload often make powerful evidence in many types of cases and lawsuits. People use photos to prove infidelity in divorce cases, submit messages from Facebook that demonstrate physical health while as part of their defense when being sued for damages after accidents, on certainly consider information on a person’s Facebook profile page when considering them for employment.

A court recently held that even with the most restrictive privacy settings, it is “foolish” to believe that Facebook is a “black box” and all the information about a person stored there cannot be viewed by courts. This holding came from a lower court and was a direct response to the claim that information hidden behind privacy settings was protected by the person’s right to privacy. The court sent a clear message that anything put onto Facebook is fair game, and it is reasonable to assume that Twitter, Flickr, LinkedIn, Google+, and other similar networks will be treated similarly.

Individuals and corporations can take an important lesson from this holding. Don’t put anything sensitive on any even semi-public website. Privacy law won’t protect it, probably not even with the best attorneys making the case except in unique situations. Privacy law is means to enable people to act within the bonds of the law without fear of having their space invaded, but does little else.

Privacy Law Doesn’t Keep Social Network Activity out of Courts. Privacy Laws are Evolving in Response to Online Actions. Learn More at http://nefflaw.com/.