Our right to privacy is protected under Article III,
Section 3, of the Philippine Constitution:
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
With multiple Online Social Networks (OSNs)available
in cyberspace, how is our constitutional right for privacy protected?
In R.
Vivares and Sps. Suzara vs. St. Theresa’s College, et. al. (G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014), the Supreme Court provided for the
“pointers” to safeguard our privacy in Facebook and other OSNs without defeating
the OSNs purpose, to wit:
1.
Customize privacy settings
Facebook states in its policies
that, although it makes every effort to protect a user’s information, these
privacy settings are not fool-proof. For instance, a Facebook user can regulate the
visibility and accessibility of digital
images (photos), posted on his or her personal bulletin or “wall,”
except for the user’s profile picture and ID, by selecting his or her desired
privacy setting:
(a)
Public - the default setting; every Facebook user can view
the photo;
(b)
Friends of Friends - only the user’s Facebook friends and
their friends can view the photo;
(c)
Friends - only the user’s Facebook friends can view the
photo;
(d)
Custom - the photo is made visible only to particular
friends and/or networks of the Facebook user; and
(e)
Only Me - the digital image can be viewed only by the user.
When photos posted in OSNs are
viewable by “friends only” the same still remain to be outside the confines of
the zones of privacy in view of the following:
(1)
|
Facebook “allows the world to be more open and connected
by giving its users the tools to interact and share in any conceivable way;”
|
(2)
|
A good number of Facebook users “befriend” other users who
are total strangers;
|
(3)
|
The sheer number of “Friends” one user has, usually by the
hundreds; and
|
(4)
|
A user’s Facebook friend can “share” the former’s
post, or “tag” others who are not Facebook friends with the former,
despite its being visible only to his or her own Facebook friends.
|
It is well to emphasize at this point 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.”
To illustrate, suppose A has 100 Facebook friends and B has 200. A and B are not Facebook friends. If C, A’s Facebook friend, tags B in A’s post, which is set at “Friends,” the initial audience of 100 (A’s own Facebook friends) is dramatically increased to 300 (A’s 100 friends plus B’s 200 friends or the public, depending upon B’s privacy setting). As a result, the audience who can view the post is effectively expanded––and to a very large extent.
2. Self-regulation
The
user themselves determine the extent of disclosure they wanted to share with
their facebook friends and OSNs followers through the customized setting. The users through privacy settings, withhold
and can regulate certain information and posts that they share to their friends
and in public. Self-regulation on the part of OSN users and internet consumers
in general is the best means of avoiding privacy rights violations.
Citing US v. Gines-Perez : “[A] person who places a photograph on the Internet precisely intends to forsake and renounce all privacy rights to such imagery, particularly under circumstances such as here, where the Defendant did not employ protective measures or devices that would have controlled access to the Web page or the photograph itself”.
Also, United States v. Maxwell held that “[t]he more open the method of transmission is, the less privacy one can reasonably expect. Messages sent to the public at large in the chat room or e-mail that is forwarded from correspondent to correspondent loses any semblance of privacy.
It is, thus, incumbent upon internet users to exercise due diligence in their
online dealings and activities and must not be negligent in protecting their
rights. Equity serves the vigilant. Demanding relief from the courts, requires
that claimants themselves take utmost care in safeguarding a right which they
allege to have been violated. These are indispensable. We cannot afford
protection to persons if they themselves did nothing to place the matter within
the confines of their private zone. OSN users must be mindful enough to learn
the use of privacy tools, to use them if they desire to keep the information
private, and to keep track of changes in the available privacy settings, such
as those of Facebook, especially because Facebook is notorious for changing
these settings and the site’s layout often.
