More innappropriate use of internet...

[SilverFox]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081217/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_australia_facebook

Lock your facebook/myspace/similar from the public eye, seriously now. (I don't use these btw)
The internet was not made for this, I mean, it's wrong to default on a loan, but if you can't find them properly then tough cookie, we all must also consider that the loan company might be ripping them off or have scammed them in some way.

[WillPhanto1]

Okay, but isn't that against Facebook's terms of service? I mean, wouldn't law officials have to ask Facebook for permission to do that?

[killshot]

Lock your facebook/myspace/similar from the public eye, seriously now.
Good advice no matter who you are trying to hide from. The reason why anyone would want personal information floating around the internet escapes me to this day.

[Tatterdemalion]

I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, it's not as though anyone's privacy was violated, or anything unethical or unreasonable was done.

Although I think it's silly, isn't the entire point of Facebook for people to be able to find and contact one another? How does the reason for contacting the person change this? Why is it somehow any more wrong for someone in this situation to be contacted via facebook than through the mail?

[MrsSallyBakura]

Lock your facebook/myspace/similar from the public eye, seriously now.
Only people from my old high school, college, and the people I friend can see my Facebook. Most of the world population cannot look at it. Facebook is more private than people give credit for.

I never add people I've never met in some way. If someone had my email address and found me through Facebook, they'd have to add me as a friend before they can see anything. I won't add them if I don't know them.

[darkarcher]

Allow me to address the specific topic you have raised.

How is this an inappropriate use of the internet? The entire idea of the internet is networking, allowing many to view one thing, or one person to view many things, all from a single access point. This would include the transfer of files and, in turn, legal documents.wrong to default on a loan, but if you can't find them properly then tough cookie,
The defendant has a legal obligation to appear in court. It is in their own best interest to receive those files.we all must also consider that the loan company might be ripping them off or have scammed them in some way.
A natural assumption. However, do not think that just because it's a loan company or some sort of corporation that they are attempting to scam the person. Loan companies typically only have a bad reputation because people do not like having to return money that they have borrowed.Okay, but isn't that against Facebook's terms of service? I mean, wouldn't law officials have to ask Facebook for permission to do that?
How is this against Facebook's terms of service? It's not like they hacked Facebook to find this person, they merely took the email that the person had already provided to them and found that person on Facebook as a means of contacting them.

An argument that could be made on this point is that a legal document transferred by Facebook would not be valid, but that's the actual topic of the article.I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, it's not as though anyone's privacy was violated, or anything unethical or unreasonable was done.

Although I think it's silly, isn't the entire point of Facebook for people to be able to find and contact one another? How does the reason for contacting the person change this? Why is it somehow any more wrong for someone in this situation to be contacted via facebook than through the mail?
Exactly.

[KuroStarr]

Dammit... Is nothing sacred?

[SilverFox]

Basically, it is unethical for someone working at a legal firm to use an internet connection for applications other than the allocated database/company operation specific programs, with it also being unethical for that person to use their own personal home internet on the subject of their law firm's work, outside of those same allocated database/company operation specific programs they may have installed on their personal computer.

Just so we're clear
Email MUST not be allowed to attempt to replace regular mail systems, and the government MUST not be allowed to attempt to assign everyone a national email.
The most important thing in the world is privacy, the governments plan clearly is to know everything about everybody, and where they are at all times and what they are doing, and it should be the goal of anyone who calls themself human and believes in humanity to destroy these oppressive moves.
The strange/scary thing is they were all human once too, and there is no one person running it and enforcing their master plan, it's like the government is like a bunch of round stones and the people who work in it are pushing them along to the finish, they are all on a set path and anyone who is assigned that particular job/round stone does the same job as anyone else in that job, but the difference in how they perform is like their ability to push the stone.

Oppression and privacy invasion is why everyone should pay with cash and not use electronic payment systems (unless it's something specialised or obvious other reasons), it takes a few ignorant jerks in a statistics group to do a survey on how many people use electronic payments for it to ruin everything, the government gets the statistics, then makes a plan to phase out cash/anonymous purchasing.
Do you really want to government to know what underwear you just bought? or anything you may have bought in an adult store? someone gets killed with something made from a sex toy, and they'll come to you and inspect what you have.
You might one day buy a can of coke at a vending machine using a credit card, and unbenknownst to you, an alledged crime may take place around the corner and the next day you would be a home and the police will come to your door asking if you saw anything, because the government checked the system and find your credit card registered on that machine at around that time, and come and interrogate you, now, it's well and fine to want to solve an alledged crime, but the fact they came and interrupted your life thanks to this technology is wrong.

And that is why this is wrong <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'>
I didn't intend to hijack the topic a bit, I just really needed to get my point across on unethical/invasive technology and it's application.

[darkarcher]

Frankly, your post makes no sense. It reeks of government conspiracy theory and has very little actual logic behind it.Basically, it is unethical for someone working at a legal firm to use an internet connection for applications other than the allocated database/company operation specific programs,
See, this is what I don't quite get. I understand that it may be unpractical, inappropriate, or even illegal, but in what way is it unethical?with it also being unethical for that person to use their own personal home internet on the subject of their law firm's work, outside of those same allocated database/company operation specific programs they may have installed on their personal computer.
You do realize that many lawyers work from home, correct? In addition, it's not like the lawyers are hunting these people down. They were using the email that the person in question had provided to them.Email MUST not be allowed to attempt to replace regular mail systems,
I agree, but where is your proof that this is happening?and the government MUST not be allowed to attempt to assign everyone a national email.
How did we get on this subject, and where do you gather that the government is attempting to do this?The most important thing in the world is privacy, the governments plan clearly is to know everything about everybody, and where they are at all times and what they are doing, and it should be the goal of anyone who calls themself human and believes in humanity to destroy these oppressive moves.
This drips of conspiracy theory, and has very little basis to it. Also, you're stepping into a logical fallacy if you have to resort to appealing to "common humanity" as a basis for your argument.The strange/scary thing is they were all human once too, and there is no one person running it and enforcing their master plan, it's like the government is like a bunch of round stones and the people who work in it are pushing them along to the finish, they are all on a set path and anyone who is assigned that particular job/round stone does the same job as anyone else in that job, but the difference in how they perform is like their ability to push the stone.

Yes, let's just go out and automatically assume that the government is full of mindless drones with no personal drive themselves, and inherently evil to boot. You seem to neglect the fact that the very freedom you are espousing is what enables those people to be in office through the democratic system.Oppression and privacy invasion is why everyone should pay with cash and not use electronic payment systems (unless it's something specialised or obvious other reasons), it takes a few ignorant jerks in a statistics group to do a survey on how many people use electronic payments for it to ruin everything, the government gets the statistics, then makes a plan to phase out cash/anonymous purchasing.
So it's the government's fault that people have no self control and get overloaded with credit cards...yeah...

Once again, you're lacking in any sort of logical proof regarding the government's motives.You might one day buy a can of coke at a vending machine using a credit card, and unbenknownst to you, an alledged crime may take place around the corner and the next day you would be a home and the police will come to your door asking if you saw anything, because the government checked the system and find your credit card registered on that machine at around that time, and come and interrogate you, now, it's well and fine to want to solve an alledged crime, but the fact they came and interrupted your life thanks to this technology is wrong.

So a couple of minutes of your time is definitely more valuable than solving a crime? You're talking about a very unlikely possibility as far as the technological aspect already, but nonetheless is your comfort for a few minutes seriously important enough that you should not be consulted about a crime? Nonsense.

I repeat this again. This was not a breach of privacy. The lawyer used a connection to the person that they had been provided directly by the person to find that person. It's not like they hunted the guy down. They used the legal means available to them.

[Tatterdemalion]

Basically, it is unethical for someone working at a legal firm to use an internet connection for applications other than the allocated database/company operation specific programs, with it also being unethical for that person to use their own personal home internet on the subject of their law firm's work, outside of those same allocated database/company operation specific programs they may have installed on their personal computer.

If you're saying that it's unethical for a law firm to use a the internet for purposes outside of their "company operation specific programs," that''s one thing, but what the law firm is doing is using an internet connection to serve legal papers. I think serving legal papers is well within the context of what a law firm is intended to do. So what you're saying may be true, but in this case a law firm isn't using the internet for purposes that fall outside of the context of their job description, or anything unconventional. So how is that statement relevant to this particular situation?Email MUST not be allowed to attempt to replace regular mail systems, and the government MUST not be allowed to attempt to assign everyone a national email.

Why not? How does someone contacting you through E-mail constitute a violation of your privacy? Answer that, then we'll talk.

And back on the subject of Facebook...

I mean, I'm 100% against government violation of privacy rights, but at the same time, keep in mind that anything like E-mail, or a facebook account, which is voluntarily made public by you is inherently not private, because you never made the decision to make it private. I mean, if I voluntarily add my name and social security number to a public electronic database, and someone searches it and finds out my information did that person violate my privacy? No, because I surrendered my right to an expectation of privacy when I intentionally made that information public. So how is this any different?

Oh, also, if it makes you feel any better you're being unreasonably paranoid. There is no logical reason for the government to want to know everything about everybody, you've said so yourself. The government is not inclined to do anything that does not immediately satisfy its own best interest. If anyone's going to be invading your privacy it's going to be private corporations, because private organizations of a commercial nature are the only ones who could possibly stand to benefit from such information.

Also, the government, even under the most corrupt leaders, does not have the means through which to institute mass surveilance programs (also, abolishing money would be absolutely devastating to the economy...yeah). That's what a lot of people don't realize, very rarely does the government have the power to force people to surrender their private information, people who have your private information are simply inclined to give it away voluntarily. People choose to leave electronic records of their purchases by using credit cards, people choose to give away personal information over the internet (and I don't think anyone ever assumed the internet was private), people choose to freely give out their social security information, as well as other such stuff...you don't need the government to force people to leave records, virtually everyone is doing it on their own. It's not invasion of privacy when people are just leaping at the chance to give it away. If everyone were to try to keep their personal life a secret, the government would be almost entirely unable to do anything about it. But nobody's trying, so how can you complain? Don't blame the government, blame the citizens, because they're the ones who are taking the action.

And keep in mind, with resistance, for the government to completely oppress an unwilling population as you suggested it would take a massive, very well organized conspiracy, spanning the entire executive and legislative branches of the federal government, spanning several terms of political officers, as well as the Supreme Court, and several lower levels of the judicial system...let's face it, government officials can barely get themselves re-elected, and can't settle the simplest or the most important issues, how are they going to work so cohesively as to produce something that requires a tremendous amount of both time and cohesiveness, and at the same time offers no actual benefit to anyone? You give the government too much credit.

And one more thing, are we talking about the American government or the Australian government? Or the Azerbaijani government? Because this incident took place in Australia...or is it all governments everywhere in the world?

[MrsSallyBakura]

Oppression and privacy invasion is why everyone should pay with cash and not use electronic payment systems
You do realize that other payment forms can be dangerous too, right?

Remember the movie Catch Me If You Can? The one starring Leonardo DiCaprio?

Well the guy that DiCaprio was portraying I remember did some sort of interview after the movie came out and gave suggestions on how to avoid identity theft. There was an article about it in the newspaper. He actually said something about how you should pay your credit card bill online and not through check-and-mail because that will grab the attention of an identity thief and could steal your check. The red flag on your mailbox can (dare I say it) literally be a red flag for thieves. Checks can give away enough information for those guys, at least on a financial level.

I know that kind of stuff is technically easier on the Internet, but honestly, that doesn't mean that boycotting Facebook or anything like that will protect you. The invasion of privacy exists in other forms that don't involve the Internet at all.

But that's not even the issue regarding this article.

Like Tatterdemalion, I also get the impression that you're just being paranoid. After reading over the article a few times, I actually didn't think that what they did was that bad. Other forms of communication weren't working, so they couldn't give up just because you think that using Facebook as a means to find someone is unethical. This was probably an important case and the defendant needed to be found. It's not like they were trying to get his social security number and rob the poor people. This is hardly a case of inappropriate use of the Internet, as there are much worse things you can do to the people using it.

You know, I think you need to get a Facebook. For perspective.