Picture this. You’re peacefully chatting with a friend online. You take a stroll outside to grab the mail. Out of nowhere, you receive a letter ordering you to court based on your activity on social network sites.

Is this fair? Is this legitimate? Is this even legal?

Apparently, it is. Facebook and other social network sites often cooperate freely with law enforcement to utilize all resources in preventing crime and establishing safety. Especially in this technological age, this makes perfect sense and is defendable. Unfortunately, concerns over the legitimacy of such evidence obtained from these sites are raised.

The issue of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution in relation to online activity must be addressed. Of course, this amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure, requiring officers to search private property only with reasonable suspicion and a subpoena or search warrant. Upheld by Mapp v. Ohio, this amendment has been invoked countless times in cases in which the evidence may have been collected under suspicious conditions. Harvesting information from social network sites definitely constitutes one of these grey-area conditions. People may object to seizure of conversations or photos as evidence from these sites, citing privacy. However, Facebook and many other sites freely cooperate with law enforcement in such situations, handing years of conversations, photos, posts, and personal information to officers who brandish subpoenas. Furthermore, law enforcement has been known to make false profiles on Facebook posing as young girls to incriminate predators and as potential buyers to incriminate drug dealers. Although effective, the legality and morality of these deliberate deceptions remain questionable, and even Facebook policies strictly prohibit false accounts.

While such evidence stands in court, other (less questionable) means exist to obtain incriminating information. As a result, companies such as Twitter go to lengths in order to protect the privacy of the users, occasionally in the face of legal threats (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/03/tech/social-media/twitter-ruling-transparency/index.html). This raises the question of ownership of statements made on social network sites; if users own all statements made on social network sites, then Facebook and Twitter should not hand over information to law enforcement. In addition, some have attempted to use mere activity on social network sites to incriminate or demand statements from people. For example, the banking firm Julius Baer subpoenaed an “officer” of the WikiLeaks Facebook page in regard to leaked documents by the actual company WikiLeaks. This “officer” had no inside knowledge of WikiLeaks operations and possessed no responsibilities or legitimate affiliations to WikiLeaks; he was simply listed as a Stanford representative of WikiLeaks on a Facebook fan page (fortunately, Julius Baer eventually dropped the case).

The point to consider is this: what if Julius Baer didn’t drop the case? What if the trial proceeded to conclusion? Would this “officer” be forced to go through the whole trial and serve as the representative of WikiLeaks? Can Facebook statements, photos, and even activity be used as evidence in court? What if Facebook decided to have open conversation with law enforcement to perform a system-wide scan of illegal activities (such as underage drinking and smoking, illicit activities, etc) and report all offenses to policemen? What if Facebook installed a report button such that anyone could report illegal activities? Of course, this makes logical sense, but how far does this infringe on privacy? If all statements, photos, and activity on social network sites can be accessed freely by law enforcement, where is the line drawn for personal information (private conversations) and public information (about me sections)? Would sifting through private conversations be considered as eavesdropping? Would all privacy be neglected in the name of justice?

Obviously, this is a slippery slope consideration. Facebook is not going to hand over its database of information to incriminate everyone. Still, this is an interesting point to consider. What if…