RSSThe fallacy of Facebook privacy
By Carmi Levy | Published November 26, 2009, 1:03 PM
Natalie Blanchard is either the most naïve Facebook user in the history of the social networking service, or an incredibly unlucky woman who just can't seem to get back on her feet. Whatever title she ends up wearing, she's quickly becoming the poster child for caution in the social media age. Unless you belong to a mysterious sect that specifically bans any form of online activity, either learn her difficult lesson or risk suffering a similar fate.
The resident of Bromont, Quebec, Canada suffers from severe depression and has been on long-term disability leave from her job at IBM for over a year-and-a-half. She had been receiving benefits from her company's insurer, Manulife, until earlier this fall when the checks suddenly stopped coming. When she called her insurance agent to find out why, she was told the company had looked up her supposedly private Facebook account, and found pictures of her posing with Chippendale dancers at a bar, attending a birthday party, and enjoying a beach vacation.
For its part, Manulife won't comment specifically about the Blanchard case. While the company has said it "would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on Web sites such as Facebook," it did confirm that it does check into the Facebook accounts of its clients. And given Facebook's architecture, even a private account will leak information like photos and status updates to anyone with even a basic ability to navigate the service. Despite Facebook's recent efforts to shore up its privacy policies and procedures, its online definition and application of the term still differs greatly from how we learned it as kids.
Privacy? What privacy?
This comes too late to help Blanchard, of course, who couldn't understand how her insurance overlords got a hold of her supposedly locked down postings. This was her first, last, and only mistake. Because nothing is ever private on the Internet. And at the risk of kicking an unfortunate soul when she's already down, if you really wanted to keep something to yourself, you wouldn't put it online -- in any form -- in the first place.
We participate in social media specifically because we want to share slices of our respective life stories with those around us. Some of us also want to grow that audience, hence the relentless pressure to amass more online "friends" and followers. These tools have turned many of us into prolific broadcasters. And like any broadcast, where what's sent out is often consumed by a different audience than the originally intended one, there's always a risk, however small, of the message landing wrong. In Blanchard's case, not only did the photographic message spread further than intended, but it also prompted her insurer to believe she was no longer suffering from depression and could head back to work.
Whether she returns to her office or stays home will now likely be decided in court. Blanchard has filed a $275,000 civil suit against the insurer, and the first hearing is scheduled for Quebec Superior Court on December 8. However this particular case plays out, Facebookers, Twitterers, MySpacers, and bloggers everywhere now have another high-profile example of someone who, for whatever reason, failed to appreciate the impact her online activities would have on her real life.
In many respects, it's easy to feel sorry for Ms. Blanchard in her rejection of the insurer's rejection of her. She feels wronged by the company. She feels the company mistakenly assumes the pictures its investigators saw were clear evidence of her recovery. She claims the clubhopping, the partying, and the prancing around on the beach were all recommended by her doctor -- tonics for a depressed soul. She claimed that "in the moment" she felt fine, but leading up to and following the moments when those pictures were taken, she remained her depressed self.
The futility of picking a winner
It's hard to tell who's right and who's wrong in a case like this. And in virtually all respects, it simply doesn't matter. Manulife drew its own conclusions based on the evidence available to it through social media. Whether it's justified or not is almost irrelevant. Merely the whiff of impropriety in a social media posting is often enough to prompt an employer, an insurer, or some other class of protagonist to pull the plug.
As we lead more of our lives online, the number of incidents like this will only skyrocket. Things like due process and presumption of innocence will all be tossed out the window as large organizations become more comfortable with their newfound power over employees and other small-potatoes stakeholders. HR departments now routinely Google job applicants and dig into their activities on popular social media sites to get a better picture of them than any resume or cover letter could ever provide. You can say what you want in your application package, the thinking goes, but what you do on your own time speaks volumes about the kind of person you really are...and whether you'll even get to that coveted first interview. The scrutiny doesn't end when you get the job, either, as our desire to hang it all out for all to see has tilted the playing field in favor of those who employ us.
I'd like to assume the rules for staying under the radar in this increasingly open, privacy-free environment are straightforward and easily understood. I'd also like to assume that there's an all-encompassing list of do's and don'ts out there that we can use as a guide for this Byzantine new order. But we all know where assumptions ultimately lead us, and in any event, the environment is changing too quickly for any one solution to ever stick long enough to be useful.
The sad truth is this: There's no way to ensure every person who reads every one of our online activities will absorb the tone of the message exactly as we originally intended. We could, of course, unplug completely. But that's an alternative that carries risks of its own, most of which are significantly worse than running afoul of some pencil-pushing insurance industry investigator.
Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.
Livin' it up on the Insurance company's dime while not working... sorry, no sympathy here.
Score: 0
|All of you people, again, don't disappoint by showing absolutely no sophistication, an integral part of extreme high intelligence.
The lady's account was MOST LIKELY INFILTRATED. I'm pretty sure she TRIED to hide the info the insurance company was able to "COLLECT".
That is, if you paid ME, the nice sum of $5000, I'd get onto any facebook user's account as a friend. ANY ONE. All you have to do is "casually" run into them online somewhere.. or become friends with THEIR friends (you can usually see the list, or figure it out by talking to some people at work), then it makes it all too believable that you're really interested in them romantically/professionally (and you are so handsome & successful and such a good match for them, even though you have some invented flaw or two, for the "reality" touch).
Oh well, I'm talking to the wall... You people will never understand. Anyway, bottom line, Levy's right -- there is absolutely NO PRIVACY ONLINE if someone wants really really hard to see what you're upto, especially if you are BREAKING THE LAW...
Score: -1
|What your talking about is an aspect of hacking. How's that for your "sophistication"?
Is it possible to be intelligent without being sophisticated? Could the difference between these two things be what 'common sense' is all about?
Score: 1
|Yeah I created a facebook account with a random username and tried to friend people at work. Every one approved it without any idea who I was. I was able to get TONS of personal information about these people, including fairly heavy flirting with other coworkers that would probably get them reprimands.
I would never, ever use one of these social sites, they are a disaster waiting to happen. I don't even feel that good about having a gmail account, it's not too much better...
Score: 0
|Hacking is being at least as smart as the person designing the security portion of what you were able to break into. Yes, you can be moderately intelligent without being sophisticated, but you cannot EVER be extremely intelligent without being sophisticated. High intelligence, by definition, is being able to EASILY see "tricks" in any question/situation posed.
Common sense is indeed very important. It is, however, as you probably should know by now, a little too common to really be a strong tool against someone with MORE than common sense -- someone highly intelligent (hence sophisticated)... Nobody will be able to avoid falling into a trap setup by someone(s) of vastly higher intelligence than themselves. Period.
Score: 0
|I'm sure she had a legit problem (otherwise she would not have been getting money for a year and a half). I certainly would never stop someone from having some fun (she probably needed it). I think the real problem is with her attitude when it comes to Facebook. It is NOT mandatory to advertise to the world everytime you have a good day. I do know from personal experience dealing with people around me that there are good days and bad days. Again, I believe she does have a legit problem. But, you don't advertise in places that the insurance company is known for looking. It would be better to just stay off the social sites for a while. I think this was more to Levy's real point.
With that said, The insurance company does need some kind of method for filtering out the fakers from the serious problems. What are they going to rely on? a written statement from a doctor? a doctor that is bought and owned by the insurance company?
My heart goes out to those with these kinds of problems. I've seen what it can do to people. But, This story is more about a serious disconnect that people (all over the world) have when it comes to technology. Being capable of doing something does not mean that it must be done. Don't mis-understand me. I'm not saying that she should not be allowed on facebook or that facebook shouldn't exist. I'm saying that she used some seriously poor judgment in her use of it.
What people quite often fail to realize is that privacy on the internet is a lie. It does not exist. You can cover it up to a certain degree. But, nothing on the web is actually private. The MPAA and RIAA has found this out the hard way (along with all they have sued).
Score: 1
|"The MPAA and RIAA has found this out the hard way (along with all they have sued)."
Are you saying they have found it difficult to find out names in cases of infringement? Because in some cases they have run into ISP's/Universities not handing over names, and in others they have handed them out willy-nilly. ISP's and Uni's have both been sued in these cases, and it is costly all around for all parties except for ironically the file sharers.
Score: 0
|I'm saying that the AA's have found out how hard it is to keep things private. Their coveted 'content' can't be locked down for love or money. I'm saying that NOTHING online is private. Once it's there (once it's digitized), that's all she wrote.
Score: 0
|Wow, lets complain about the site you use to complain to world about how much your life sucks. Another lackluster story for Betanews. Officially removed from the bookmarks. Goodbye Betanews, hopefully you return to your roots one day and get rid of hacks like Carmi Levy. Hopefully he can get a life beyond digital criticism and social networking.
Score: -1
|First off, you CAN make your photos private you just have to pay attention and this woman was obviously a moron. Second boo effing hoo, go back to work. I am so sick of hearing people whine about being depressed. So what. Go to work. I'm depressed but I go to work. Its because of frauds like her scamming the insurance companies that premiums are high. She deserves to be tried for insurance fraud. No sympathy whatsoever.
Score: 0
|It's because of idiots like you that people can't get the health insurance they need and deserve. It's against the law for an insurance company to cancel benefits without proper medical evidence. Facebook doesn't have this information because of doctor-patient confidentiality. The only way for an insurance company to get the info they need is from an actual doctor. This lady deserved every penny she was getting from the insurance company. Not every medical problem can be solved with a quick fix like popping pills.
Score: 0
|No you stupid child you are NOT depressed. Depression is a DISEASE a chemical imbalance in the brain that can kill people. You are just a spoiled little twit.
(And no, you can't make your photos private, you only think so)
Score: 2
|Wahh wahh wahh. Again, as stated before. No sympathy. Clinical Depression is an invention.
Score: -3
|@improvelence - Show me proof that Clinical Depression is an invention.
Score: 0
|BTW, Canada has single payer health insurance. Why is this lady even bothering with a private health care insurer anyways?
Score: 0
|She is dealing with a private company because it's through her employer.
Score: 0
|The insurance company is clearly in the wrong. Decisions on whether to cancel someone's disability benefits are supposed to be made strictly based on medical information, not from pictures on facebook. This insurance company needs to pay this woman the back benefits she's owed. Does the law really state that a health insurance company can cancel someone's insurance without proper medical evidence? The next thing you know, insurance companies will try to cancel coverage for a blind person because they haven't lost 100% of their vision. Considering health insurance companies are supposed to be non profit organizations I don't know how they get away things like this.
Score: 1
|"Considering health insurance companies are supposed to be non profit organizations"
Where did you ever get that idea?
Score: 0
|Regence Blue Shield/Blue Cross sent me a letter stating they were non profit.
Score: 0
|"Decisions on whether to cancel someone's disability benefits are supposed to be made strictly based on medical information, not from pictures on facebook."
I think a court decides that, not some user on the Betanews website.
Score: 0
|I've suffered from depression more than once over the years and to say that you can't from time to time engage in such activities as going to see the Chippendales, or attend a birthday party, or enjoy a beach vacation over a year and a half time period, is such a complete total load of absolute bullcrap that it's almost unbelievable
To suggest that you can't be suffering from depression unless you stay indoors 24/7 and not have any kind of life is crap - if you are clinically depressed you are clinically depressed. It does not mean that therefore A leads to B and life is on standstill and on hold until such time as you come out of depression. You will from time to time have bright spots and the very nature of depression is such that family and friends will try to do things to cheer you up. This article makes me so mad I can hardly stop myself from swearing right, left, and centre about this - it makes me so mad.
Score: 4
|ummm, get ur butt to work! you can cry on your lunch break! nice try lady ;-)
Score: -3
|Why don't you do something useful, like go step on a landmine.
Score: 3
|I suffer with depression,and it is true that occasionally you do have good moments so it is possible she is telling the truth.I thought that being unpredictable and up and down was one of the traits of it.Personally though,saying that I don't think one would post these things on line and communicate with friends like that,I can't use these types of services,I can never think of anything to say.Took me ages just to write this.I think she's scamming them,my opinion.
Score: 6
|Just because a person isn't feeling the worst end of the spectrum of their diagnosis 24/7/365 doesn't meant they don't suffer from their condition. It's not like friends or family never take people out to help relieve some of the depression (and yes, you can go out & do typically fun things & still be depressed or suffer from another condition). In any case, posting the pics on facebook probably wasn't the smartest thing to do. If in fact she's faking it, then she had it coming to her, but basing the decision on some (supposedly private) facebook pics and not a medical examination? That's just playing dirty (typical). It shouldn't even be legal.
So the, I take it that only a perfectly healthy person could ever hope to pose with Chippendale dancers at a bar, attend a birthday parties, or enjoy a beach vacation. That's pretty narrow minded thinking if you ask me. I hate to burst your bubble, but there are PLENTY of depressed people in bars, at parties & on vacations.
There is a posibility that her Dr did recommend doing (at least some) of those things, I know someone who's Dr actually prescribed him a motorcycle (as a form of therapy) to help with his condition, and on that note...anything's possible.
rl096 makes it sound like she'd have to be on thorazine or some other "serious meds" if she was "clinically depressed".
Esquire's got it right about the stereotypical idea about depression. Too many people are more than happy to throw out their "(non)professional" opinions regardless of what they actually know.
There are many conditions that let up at times and the sufferers have "good days" when they feel pretty good & may just get out & do things that they rarely feel well enough to do (or they need to do but normally can't)...does that make it any less dibilitating? Does this mean they don't suffer from a condition? HELL NO! But give the insurance co's or SSDI the tiniest thing that shows you're not bedridden & they're quick to pull the rug out from under you.
Like Moochman1 says. "No insurer should have the right to withdraw coverage based on *anything* other than a change of diagnosis on the part of the doctor."
There are conditions that aren't recognized as disabilities, yet those who suffer from them rarely have "good" days where they can function in a relatively normal fashion. Fibromyalgia comes to mind, does the fact that sufferers have occasional "good days" and that it's not recognized as a disability or mean it's not seriously dibilitating? Absolutely not.
It all comes down to the bottom line, and they don't discriminate between legitimately disabled & fakers when it comes to cutting costs.
Score: 8
|i am not liking this future that we are going to, a world without privacy. it was foreseen that in the future people will have no privacy but that would not matter, because it was like being in a restaurant with a lot of people on different tables, we don't go looking around to see what other people is doing. information everywhere, and people don't care about the information of people they don't know. i am not liking erasing the borders of our privacy more and more. maybe because i grew up having privacy. our kids or grandkids are going to have a very faded concept of what is privacy, and they're going to be ok with it.
Score: 2
|With hindsight, this could have been prevented if Ms. Blanchard were to configure her photo albums privacy settings correctly.
Facts of the case not withstanding, isn't it steretypical to assume people suffering depression cannot be among "the living" and try to have a normal life?
Score: 8
|The author of this article clearly does not understand facebook's privacy settings either.
Score: 0
|"It's hard to tell who's right and who's wrong in a case like this. And in virtually all respects, it simply doesn't matter. Manulife drew its own conclusions based on the evidence available to it through social media. Whether it's justified or not is almost irrelevant. Merely the whiff of impropriety in a social media posting is often enough to prompt an employer, an insurer, or some other class of protagonist to pull the plug."
You have got to be kidding. This is exactly why we need better laws to protect us from this kind of bulls***. No insurer should have the right to withdraw coverage based on *anything* other than a change of diagnosis on the part of the doctor. Period. No insurer should have the right to fire someone *for no reason* unless they can actually prove that 1) the person actually did something to deserve it, or 2) the company is in dire financial straits.
Yes, there will always be people taking advantage of the system, getting insurance or staying employed when they shouldn't be, but the risk of that is far outweighed by the risk of abuse from above if there is no oversight.
Score: 3
|Actually, the insurer has all the right. It's their money, and the other clients who pay their premiums. "Depression" is a misdiagnosis anyway (unless due to a chemical imbalance, whereby our protagonist would be on serious medication and not merely "disability" leave).
Many always want to "stick it" to the insurer. Well, what about the rest of us who pay for health and disability insurance? People like her make our premiums go up.
If she has the "energy" and "mental aptitude" to go partying, she can go back to work.
Score: -6
|I fail to see how, just because it's "their money" and the other clients pay the premiums, the insurer automatically "has all the right".
Your entire argument is based on an uninformed, biased and frankly somewhat bigoted notion of what the diagnosis of "depression" means. (In fact, your argument about her deserving what she got sounds almost identical to Levy's above). The problem is that your (and the insurer's and Levy's) subjective opinion, formed on the fly without a basis in any kind of further investigation aside from glancing at a few photos, is a far cry from being conclusive. And if you give the insurer the right to make these kind of snap decisions without being able to back them up with anything more concrete than a few vacation photos, it is a slippery slope.
As to your point about her driving up premiums: You're whining about this under the assumption that she's faking it, that she's playing the system. Again, no proof. But forget her, just imagine for one half of a split second that you actually *get sick* and need to cash in on that investment you've been paying to the insurer all these years. But they won't give you a cent, citing some vague, unsubstantial reason. Maybe then you wouldn't feel as sympathetic toward the insurer and towards the other people whose premiums you were so worried about being driven up.
It's just as I said in my earlier post: Yes, a few people always take advantage of the system. That's unfortunately the way all systems work. Certainly, there are criminals who get out of penalties for committing crimes, for instance, because the law specifies "innocent until proven guilty", in order to protect the vast majority. Likewise, the vast majority of people who claim they are sick, really are sick! (shocking I know.) They deserve protection from being cut off, just when they need help the most.
Score: 4
|Get bent, Levy.
Score: -4
|He is right. Go get yourself bent.
And what happened between now and...
Comment - My father's laptop: A humble machine's simple lesson
7.4.5 (Sep 30, 2009 - 1:59 AM)
A very touching story, thanks for sharing it with us.
Sorry for your loss.
Score: 0
|A different privacy issue that I have seen is having people post pictures and tag others in them. You might be smart enough to not post pictures of yourself looking ……..but do your FB friends care or understand?
I would like to see an approval mechanism in FB that sends a 1 click approval query to the people being tagged in a photo prior to being publicly displayed. The postee is asked if they have right to post the photo but if it is not them in the photo is that there right to sign off on. Legally maybe? But ethically, maybe not?
They can still post the photo, but if they want to tag you in a photo you should have the right to decide if you want that photo outside of your own privacy network.
Thoughts?
Score: 1
|Josh people only have opinions here, there's no room for thought.
Score: 1
|