Huckleberries Online

OTV: Posting Facebook Links

Posted by Cindy

Dec. 28, 2009 9:50 a.m. • 18 comments

OTV raises an interesting point:

“Certainly these guys should have taken advantage of Facebook’s privacy settings, but to me, picking on them because they didn’t is no better than the OpenCDA creeps picking on Christie for a couple of grammar errors.

Yes, these pages were freely accessible via Google, but was it really necessary to post direct links to them here on a newspaper blog? It’s not about privacy issues or freedom issues to me, it’s about respect. One of Kellen’s friends is involved in a horrid tragedy and he didn’t really need the additional stress of realizing his FB page had been linked to on a public forum.” Full comment.

Do you agree with OTV that this is a respect issue? Or do you feel that people who don’t use the privacy settings on Facebook get what they deserve?

18 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Lizard_People on December 28 at 10:37 a.m.
So says the man who picks on people’s pores.
361degrees on December 28 at 10:38 a.m.
I feel that facebook has sent enough messages to it users that it is now someones own fault if they do not manage their privacy settings correctly. Most of the people I encounter that do not have privacy settings do not have them for one main reason: because they feel that everyone needs to know how cool they are. Just my opinion though.
OrangeTV on December 28 at 10:49 a.m.
Pores? I was picking on the size of the photo. His pores were just swell, uh, I guess.
Bent on December 28 at 10:54 a.m.
I guess I’ll disagree… while I can see where this Kellen guy feels violated — and maybe rightfully so — i don’t see where there was any damage done to him whatsoever… the people on the thread yesterday simply were not buying the standard press release on this one and turned to the NEW media for answers..

I think what we witnessed here was and (still is) extremely powerful. Like MamaJD points out on the original thread, it is amazing how by simply following just a few internet threads you can get the straight (unfiltered) answer from eyewitnesses and direct family members. Granted, it is all online and annonymous. And of course, 90 percent of the comments are speculation or emotional pleas from friends, but a few specific comments do appear legitimate and they begin to weave a story that is almost directly opposed to the official position of the CDA police.

Check out this 11:54 comment by JIT: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/dec/27/2-men-shot-downtown-coeur-dalene/

This is realtime media and anything out there on the web is fair game folks… this just goes to show you how everyone involved is going to have to reasses their game plans…
Don_Sausser on December 28 at 11:44 a.m.
IMO most bloggers wouldn’t let respect interfere with their own important messages.
scootermom on December 28 at 11:54 a.m.
If you want some privacy, don’t post your life for the world to see.
Sisyphus on December 28 at 12:20 p.m.
Well, in the words of Clint Eastwood, ‘deservin’s got nothing to do with it.’

OTV makes a legitimate point, but, there is this completely unfounded sense of invincibility from people on social networking sites. It’s astonishing what people will post in the tubes which never really goes away once its online. People get some sort of solace from thinking that of the billions of people in the world, no one would bother looking them up. This is reinforced when they talk to their friends about their site yet hear nothing from strangers either within the tubes or in the meat puppet world.

But sometime in everyone’s life, either by design or by chance, they will become of interest to others, and the most accessible and quickest method to do so is on the internet, which should come as no surprise to anyone since its the very thing that makes the tubes so popular, information exchange. So whether its a potential employer, a prestigious school, a security clearance evaluator, a paramour, or law enforcement, one should not be surprised when the information they voluntarily post comes back to bite them in the butt. Their feelings of outrage can only be borne from an expectation of privacy which, on the tubes, is kinda laughable.

I attended a continuing education seminar recently where it was advised that attorneys incorporate routine discovery requests to divulge information from people’s personal web pages. I’ve had to admonish my children about their web pages and I had to laugh at, first, their feelings of embarrassment, and then, their feelings of outrage that I’d seen them. The lesson did slowly sink in. Better that I teach this lesson than they learn it in a much more painful way.
Cindy_H on December 28 at 12:24 p.m.
And people wonder why I don’t have a Facebook account. Sheesh. I probably get in enough trouble on this blog!
Sisyphus on December 28 at 12:24 p.m.
Bent, if I was law enforcement JIT would be one of the first people I’d want to talk to in detail.
Bent on December 28 at 12:31 p.m.
Exactly Sis…
Bent on December 28 at 12:35 p.m.
Another interesting thing is occuring today as theses people realize what is available to public on their facebook pages… they are being locked down and scrubbed of comments. Someone is even scrubbing Adam Johnson’s page, which had many more comments yesterday…
MusicalChair on December 28 at 12:44 p.m.
I like facebook for sharing photos with friends and family. But if I were sitting on a panel of jurors, I would NEVER consider facebook as evidence. There is so much BS with friends trying to impress other friends with their drinking photos and trumped up status posts. It disgusts me that hucksters are trying to get a glimpse into Adam Johnson’s personality and hearsay to determine what happened before we know the truth. I believe that is the police dept and trained investigators’ jobs. My family knows Adam, and even though it is not a close relationship, it’s shocking that something went terribly wrong that has changed a young man’s life forever.
Sisyphus on December 28 at 12:56 p.m.
Musical chair, certainly its hearsay, but under certain circumstances hearsay is admissible, like making statements against personal interest. But beyond that, anyone who wrote comments of interest to authorities will have to answer to them for it and perhaps be called to testify personally making hearsay moot. I’m a thinking this baby cuts both ways and this type of information may end up helping Adam.

“It disgusts me that hucksters are trying to get a glimpse into Adam Johnson’s personality and hearsay to determine what happened before we know the truth.”—uh the search for truth is all we’re after. There will be no magic wand waved over the facts to provide us with something revelatory resolving all issues and providing us “truth”. There will be trial in which a jury will be asked to determine the facts of that evening based on permissible evidence. Insight into Adam’s character is helpful but does little into shedding light on what actually happened. Most of us know that.
Lizard_People on December 28 at 12:57 p.m.
OTV… bwhahahhahahaha

Maybe I’m just sensitive about the size of my own pores!!

lol!!
spokelooneh on December 28 at 1:57 p.m.
“Sisyphus on December 28 at 12:24 p.m.

Bent, if I was law enforcement JIT would be one of the first people I’d want to talk to in detail.”

But JIT was completely anonymous.

“Shane Greenfield
Well the guys that he shot tried to start sh!t with my friends who are jordanian and then they realized there was ten or so of us. Well they were itching for a fight and went after adam because he spouted off to them. So from what I saw and understand, it was self defense because they beat the sh!t out of him and he shot in defense.”

THAT is the person law enforcement should want to talk to, as there is (or was) enough information about that person on the series of tubes to connect him to Johnson and the scene.
idawa on December 28 at 1:59 p.m.
this post is more appropriate on this thread, I think:

what is fascinating, beyond the the facts of this case, is watching the battle in the court of public opinion happen in real time with parties on both sides trying to control the meme …

it also has made me think about the possible implications for a jury pool in a town so small and with social networking increasing everyone connections exponentially – I wonder if we should alway ask of a potential jury member during voir dire if they are connected in a way to any party in a case via any type of social networking (blog, facebook, linkedin, myspace, etc) or if they know of or have seen anything about the parties in any form of social networking …
spokelooneh on December 28 at 2:12 p.m.
Jury selection in a high profile case has all sorts of weird machinations going on depending on how the defense and prosecution are planning to present their arguments and their respective strategies.

I recently saw the 2003 film Runaway Jury with John Cusack, yes I’m sure that was over the top, but a fascinating story, great flick.
spokelooneh on December 28 at 7:07 p.m.
BTW all this online info out there doesn’t seem to be harming the Private Investigator business, at least from what I hear anecdotally from a friend who has been the business for 30 years. Of course he does have access to some on-line resources not available to the public…

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.