Comments on: Online Privacy: The Noose Tightens

By: John LeDuc

John LeDuc — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:54:41 +0000

It was fishing and a waste of time. The lawyer got nothing out of it. Wasted the insurance money. But don’t forget to tell your clients they shouldn’t have any of the site ie. twitter, facebook or such because of the witch hunt a lawyer will do to get info. But in my case it was a slap to the face because there wasn’t anything there. Thanks.

By: Marnie Tunay

Marnie Tunay — Sat, 02 May 2009 17:58:41 +0000

P.S. to commentator Kathy SF: you don’t say if the website disseminating your private info is a commercial site. If it is, or if it’s run by a business, it should be subject to federal privacy laws (I’m assuming you’re Canadian.) Access the legislation and the commissioner’s site here:
http://www.priv.gc.ca/legislation/index_e.cfm
Also, if you look to the right of this thread, under ‘Constitutional Law & Civil Rights,’ there is a privacy law blog which may be helpful to you.

By: Marnie Tunay

Marnie Tunay — Sat, 02 May 2009 14:33:14 +0000

I don’t agree with the Ont. Superior Court’s decision. I agree with the master’s decision that the demand for discovery amounted to a fishing expedition. Discovery rules state that there must be cause to believe relevant evidence may be found in the discovery. Also, Chris Taylor is right, the logistics of proving ‘timeline’ are very difficult. Also, nobody has yet worked out the spillover implications of this case into discovery case law: if one doesn’t need cause to go on a facebook fishing expedition, what’s to stop one from going on other fishing epxeditions? I predict the decision will get stamped down by the Supremes at some not-too-distant point.
Marnie Tunay
Fakirs Canada
http://fakirscanada.spaces.live.com/default.aspx

By: Kathy SF

Kathy SF — Fri, 01 May 2009 02:47:23 +0000

This has happened to me, and I never willingly offered any information about my name, home or address, etc. on any site on the internet, including facebook, myspace, etc. I am too old to know the stakes of such a concept!

But now my name and private information is being spread like wildfire services like twitter and the like with one goal: To defame my name and to out my personal and private information AMONG a group of individuals who’s only purpose for this is that I run a competing websight.

Welcome to the world of the net.

By: jel

jel — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:17:24 +0000

It is fishing! A accident that happened in 2004 and they are getting around to it now how come? Private eyes! They must have them or couldn’t get anywhere i guess so they need to go to this! Never less I wonder what his kids are going through! I know there are people out there but we haven’t heard the other side just a lawyer that can’t find anything and grasping at straws hmmmm go figure!Any how better days!

By: Will McNair

Will McNair — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:32:02 +0000

Maybe he’s brandishing the scars from his accident at the camera and smiling wide, as if to say, “I care not a whit about these meagre scratches.”

By: Lawrence Gridin

Lawrence Gridin — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:57:41 +0000

Chris: Unless there’s a newspaper in the background :)

By: Chris Taylor

Chris Taylor — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:57:50 +0000

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that there are pictures of merriment in Leduc’s Facebook account. How does the defendant plan to establish a timeline? Perhaps Leduc took those photos prior to his 2004 accident, and merely got around to scanning and uploading them much later, around 2008-9.

Pictures of a guy having fun aren’t good enough. They have to be pictures of him having fun *after* the accident, which is something Facebook can’t provide. So it is a bit of a useless fishing expedition.

By: Tim B

Tim B — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:30:06 +0000

This represents a significant cost savings for the defendant, since to find photos contradicting a claim, one normally has to hire private detectives, or try to find bitter ex-partners or false friends to testify against the plaintiff.