One of the first lessons taught in law is volenti non fit injuria. It means “to a willing person, injury is not done.” In other words, if a person gives his consent, then he cannot sue for whatever injury that he/she suffers. This is the foundation for informed consent in medical negligence cases.
This is also the basis for getting the consent of a person while on social networking sites. The most sought after pages are those of Facebook, Orkut, Net log, LinkedIn and Instagram. With the amount of data and information being exchanged, Facebook is taken as an example. It is trite that one lives in an age where if one does not have a Facebook account, then, he/she does not exist!!! In 2007, there were 34 million Facebook users. Last counted, there were about 500 million users.
Anything and everything, from favorite food, friends, relatives, places, photographs, birthdays, emotions etc. are uploaded and it is for the whole world to see. Issues which will not be otherwise discussed in public are done so freely on these virtual pages. Views about employers, co-employees, and friends are shared freely. Few realize the dangers of doing so. Lawyers in the western countries have found Facebook a very useful tool. The “sharing” has done them more help than detectives who attempt to snoop around to get details about the other side.
Right to privacy is now a part of the Indian jurisprudence and yet Facebook is thriving. It is a voluntary disclosure of details. Therefore, one consents out of this right. The financial institutions are certainly happy and the debtors are not. After all, if a person accepts to enter a boxing ring, she consents to be boxed on her nose. She does not consent to the opponent hitting her with an iron rod. Nonetheless, the courts have permitted the photographs to be published, advertisements to be given on electronic media, about defaults in payments. The jurisprudential basis, if at all any, for this view is that a person has consented her information to be made public, while taking a loan and therefore, if it is published, it is justified. This convoluted logic was the basis for a bank to publish photographs of students, whose educational loans were allegedly due. The intention being to embarrass the borrower, if possible, spoil her social standing, bring about shame and then effect recovery. It means, the banks no more trust the legal process but rely upon social pressures for recovery. The same mode was adopted by pathani money lenders in the early part of last century. They used to put the towel around the head of the borrower and drag him in public. Such means will never pass muster today but violation of right to privacy finds judicial approval. Unfortunately, it is a case of judicial seal to the end of the right to privacy and beginning of the end to an established civilized legal system. Maybe, a development will be to permit one, if having financial muscle, advertise about former spouses, employers, professionals etc., behaviours and mannerisms.
Similarly, the “accept” page that opens in these social networking sites is full of consent clauses. No one, including the person who has penned it would have ever read it in full before creating a page of her own. There are several dangers in these sites, which thrive on consent of persons. By sharing one’s name and date of birth, 2 of the 4 details necessary for stealing one’s identity are voluntarily available. Secondly, by giving a relationship status, a stalker can find out if one is home alone. Third, uploading photographs and tagging it with the name of the children, the details sufficient for a person to build a rapport with a child are made public. This not only exposes the person to financial issues but also puts one’s family in peril.
Then comes the location tagging “checked in” button. Using location identity technology, it specifies where the person is. This goes online. Once the location is determined, the residence is vulnerable to theft.
Each time a photograph is uploaded, a person consents that the same can be viewed by her friends and relatives and also the prying eyes of hackers and thieves. If this is not enough, there are these wonderful games available on this site. They just kill time. Some applications in the forms of quizzes or the popular game, Farm Ville, authorize the application to download one’s profile and make available for third party use. All these networks take a position that they are doing utmost to protect privacy. What is forgotten is that the person who writes these programs shifts jobs. The principal example is that of Max Kelly. Before joining the snooping giant of United States of America, National Security Agency, he was the chief security officer of Facebook and of course, it is purely coincidental that he was working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A study in 2008 has been able to prove that 40% of the Facebook profiles are fake. So, one cannot judge a Facebook Friend by her timeline. Unless one exercises discretion, there is no way that one can be sure that the person with whom one is “friends” with is genuine or in fact alive. The strength of your privacy is dependent upon your friend’s privacy settings.
The wants of a person are not done by physical walking to a shop. If one wants to buy anything, immediately, the requirement is posted on a “shopping page.” All and sundry can suggest the places where they are available. It is possible that the suggestion is false and misleading. This exposes the virtual seeker to a physical danger on arriving at the suggested place. Apart from all these potential dangers, the primary one is that social networking sites are as addictive as cocaine. It affects the ability to work, results in neglect in family. The only solution is to shut down the computer and of course your smart phones.
There are of course advantages. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have attracted so many. It is a pleasure to meet old friends online. A recent incident from Pune showed how a long lost son was reunited with his family. Yet, it is finally for a person to decide. There is no running away from it either. Once a page is opened, the only option is deactivating the account. The deactivation does not mean the data is erased. It is safely tucked away in Facebook’s servers. It is sheer irony that even volenti non fit injuria has a Facebook page.
This article has been contributed by Tanmay Wahal, First Year, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS