School Invades Privacy of Students, The Punishes Them for It
This story from Ars Technica is rather galling:
Two high school student athletes got in hot water after pictures from a slumber party posted on MySpace—with privacy controls, no less—ended up on the principal’s desk. After being barred from extracurricular activities, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on the girls’ behalf claiming the punishment violated their First Amendment rights.
Reading the article, the pertinent facts are that the photos had been set up so that only approved individuals could view them; obviously, privacy was assumed. Apparently someone on that list, or someone who had access somehow, wanted to get the girls in trouble, and so handed copies of the photos to school officials. This is little different from the school accepting snapshots of the girls from a peeping tom, and then punishing the girls for that. The photos had been set for privacy, and the school, by taking possession of those photos, invaded that privacy.
One has to wonder, if a peeping tom were to point a camera into the windows of the school officials’ houses, what would come up? And how would they react if these photos were made public and they were punished for it?
If it were an issue of a peeping tom, then it would be a question of how far he went to get those pictures. The majority of voyarism statutes are in agreement that a person has an expectation of privacy if a reasonable person would be able to disrobe in private. An example would be a bedroom with the blinds closed. A person can expect to not be spied on in the privacy of their own home with the blinds closed. If that were the case, then the person taking those photos would be in violation of the statute. However, if the shades were open for anybody to see, then it would not violate the statute.
In this case, I’m not sure how it will turn out because i’m not aware of myspace’s privacy policy and how it applies to individuals that are privileged to see the protected content. The question remains; if an individual is granted access to the secured content by the owner of the content in question, does that individual reserve the right to distribute the content? Is the school liable for using that content in order to punish the students? We must also remember that the school was not the entity that violated the privacy policy in the first place if it was violated. It merely made a decision based on evidence brought forth.
Even if were someone on the approved list, it makes no difference for the person who originally absconded with the images, at least not morally. The images were marked as private, therefore anyone in the receiving group had a commitment to maintaining that privacy. For the school, there was even less difference. Upon receiving such a photo, their first question should have been, “Where did this come from?” If the person giving it to them said, “it’s a private photo they intended no one outside a small group to see,” then they would be obligated to stop right there–it’s none of their damned business. And if the source lied, it was still the school’s obligation to find the source–if it was a publicly available image, the school could access it on their own; if not, it was private. Very simple, in fact.
There is another possibility, the only one that in my mind that would relieve the school of responsibility: if one of the people on the private list did not ask to be on it, was sent the image against their wishes, and objected. In that event, I could see the school getting involved. But I’m not even sure that’s possible–I believe they would have to willingly accept an invitation to go behind a privacy shield like that–anyone know if that’s so?
Otherwise, the school was no better than they would have been accepting the image from a peeping tom–maybe legally they can say they’re covered, but not morally.
I believe that it is the school’s business if it concerns the eligibility to participate in school activities. In the past, there were videos and pictures that portrayed violent behavior that resulted in injury, humiliation, and complete disregard for the welfare of another. such evidence has always warranted not just barring of extracurricular activities, but the filing of criminal charges. Though that was a very extreme example, we can see how this case can fall within the school’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, questionable activities and photos have always been subject to effecting the eligibility in professional and minor leagues. The very fact that it is an extracurricular activity means that it is a privilege and not a right as stated in the school’s code.
As for morality, I am on the school’s side. Any behavior that can be construed as immoral, disrespectful and slanderous is a reflection on the constitution of an extracurricular group. As such, it should be up to the owner of the activity in question whether or not the photos will reflect poorly on the team. Take photos at own risk, I don’t feel sorry for these girls in the slightest.
Hi Luis–two points–one–I am going to send you a mac question via email in the next few days. Thanks in advance for your reply.
The second is in regard to your follow up post.
You said–“The images were marked as private, therefore anyone in the receiving group had a commitment to maintaining that privacy. ”
A commitment–well…. I will agree. A legal and enforceable duty–good luck.
As for the school—they run with what they get. No way an American school is going to give any consideration to “privacy”. There are several supreme court decisions in their favor (and this is from memory since I have not lived in the US in 15 years.)
In fact, a peeping tom giving any salacious photos to a principal would probably be applauded.
But in my personal opinion—-whatever—i thank my lucky stars that I don’t live in the usa. and if for some unimaginable reason I was required to return and live there……..I wouldn’t.