What Happens on Bebo: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?
by
on July 12, 2008,
Do you consider your interactions on social networking sites to be private?
Amanda Hudson is suing six U.K. newspapers based on the assumption that whatever happens on Bebo (or, by extension, other social networks) should stay on Bebo after a story her 15-year-old concocted and posted to the site was picked up by several newspapers. The big problem? Hudson's daughter's story involved underaged drinking, a visit from the police, and her mother punching her, which Hudson claims never happened. That didn't stop those who read the article from phoning Hudson with abusive comments, most likely about her parenting skills.
In the suit, Hudson charges the newspapers with defamation and "breach of privacy." Can Hudson really claim it's an invasion of privacy to pick up on a story published to a web site that anyone can access?
I don't know very much about how fair use is applied in dealing with UK copyright issues, but from general discussions online, it seems to look much the same as US copyright, and applies to anything made publicly available. Hudson may not like that the papers picked up her daughter's tale of teenaged debauchery, but suing the newspapers assumes that anything posted online is somehow private.
With the increasing amounts of information people share online, privacy is rapidly becoming a cherished commodity. Younger generations who are growing up online. often share far too much personal information without thinking of the ramifications. With web archiving and viral distribution, anything posted online should be assumed to be there forever, something that many never think about when they post it.
News agencies may now think twice before running a story before verifying whether it's factual or not, but the person Hudson should really be blaming here is her daughter for making up the story in the first place and posting it. She may also want to season that with a little bit of faulty parenting in not making sure her daughter completely understood that the Internet is public, and anything posted can take on a life of its own.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!








I agree with your analysis: Hudson’s expectations of privacy *are* unreasonable. Once a piece of information ends up becoming public (legally, or not), referencing that information later is fair game. There’s no such thing as semi-private information–a concept Hudson seems to implicitly have in mind. Thought I share my recent blog post about this nuanced privacy misconception: http://babaksjournal.blogspot.com/2008/06/on-line-that-divides-private-from.html