Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Privacy in the age of social media
With social media now in our midst, it appears that most of us have either wittingly or unwittingly exposed our private affairs to the public. A person who uploads photos of almost all facets of his life, from a simple pose after taking a bath or an album for pompous debut celebration, may have good reasons for stripping off himself of his right to privacy be it for self-aggrandizement or for whatever reason. Most of us have unknowingly submitted to social media’s undisclosed business strategy of selling our online behavior simply by clicking the mouse. Sometimes, at the height of our indiscretion, we may have already waived our right to informational privacy. A good example is the Vivares case decided in 2014.
In Vivares, et.al. vs. St. Theresa’s College, et.al., G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014, STC barred some students from participating in their graduation rites for drinking hard liquor and smoking cigarettes inside a bar; and (b) along the streets of Cebu wearing articles of clothing that show virtually the entirety of their black brassieres. The evidence possessed by the school are photographs downloaded by some students of the said school from the Facebook accounts of the two students involved. The photographs are viewable by any Facebook user. In a Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data filed by the parents, one of the issues raised was that the students’ right to privacy was violated because the privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was set at “Friends Only”, thus they have reasonable expectation of privacy which must be respected.
The Court ruled that setting a post’s or profile detail’s privacy to “Friends” is no assurance that it can no longer be viewed by another user who is not Facebook friends with the source of the content. The user’s own Facebook friend can share said content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at “Friends.”
The Court noted further that the very purpose of OSN is to facilitate the user’s self-tribute resulting in the “democratization of fame”. For this reason, a profile, or even a post, with visibility set at “Friends Only” cannot easily, more so automatically, be said to be “very private”. However, a privacy setting of “Me Only” or a custom setting limiting access to a select few shows the intention to make the post or profile private or limited; hence, the right to informational privacy may be invoked.
Stressing the need for cyber responsibility, the Court leaves this obiter dictum:
It has been said that “the best filter is the one between your children’s ears.” This means that self-regulation on the part of OSN users and internet consumers in general is the best means of avoiding privacy rights violations. As a cyberspace community member, one has to be proactive in protecting his or her own privacy. It is in this regard that many
OSN users, especially minors, fail. Responsible social networking or observance of the “netiquettes” on the part of teenagers has been the concern of many due to the widespread notion that teenagers can sometimes go too far since they generally lack the people skills or general wisdom to conduct themselves sensibly in a public forum.