Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Busted for Blogging?

So I was browsing the online pages of my alma mater's newspaper, when I came across an intriguing-sounding editorial, "Facebook-based citations violate trust."

Apparently, last month, some NC State undergrads were busted for underage drinking by their RA (Resident Advisor), because she found pictures in Facebook (the student-oriented social networking site) of them apparently engaged in alcohol-related shenanigans.

I hadn't heard of this story circulating around the blogosphere yet, so I did a little more digging and found the original story, a followup article, and an outraged editorial in the NC State newspaper, the Technician.

I
can't speak to the validity of the allegations (for example, some of
the students claim they weren't even holding booze in the pictures --
they were just near it. Also, one of them uses the old "That wasn't my
beer, I was holding it for someone else" defense...always a winner), so I'll take a look at some of the editorial reactions
by other area universities, and then look at some of the broader
questions of what happens when people see stuff you put online that you
don't necessarily want them to see (the "wrong people" question).

The Chronicle editorial is pretty weak (sorry
guys). To paraphrase, "We're students, you should trust us, you're
going to ruin the online community, everybody does it, don't hold us
accountable and go worry about real crimes."

Luke McIntyre over at UNC-Greensboro has a good opinion piece in the Carolinian Online, though it's behind a registration wall -- here's the link anyway (you can use BugMeNot).

It mentions that some NC State students have protested the nature of the evidence, saying that digital photos can easily be altered,
and then photoshopping pictures of the RA who ratted out the students,
adding beer cans, beer bongs, a beer helmet -- basically, a lot of beer. He also mentions a similar incident that happened at UNC-G, only with alcoholic captions, which kinds of limits your deniability.

The outraged editorial at NC State
is...well, outraged. It also protests the photo-only evidence ("That's
not beer in the glass -- that's an unidentified liquid!"), which,
carried to its logical conclusion, ends up disqualifying the use of any photograph as evidence.

It also sputters on a bit about student privacy...yeah, um, weren't these photos published to a social networking Web site?

Over at the UNC-Chapel Hill's Daily Tar Heel, the Board Editorial is a little more tut-tutting and a little more cautionary about posting information where it can be seen by anyone, including the dreaded 40-year-old, heavy breathing stalker guys.

Okay, so I'm conflicted. On the one hand, NC State potentially punishing people for pictures that they (or others) posted online is pretty weak. And I don't know if the university's judicial system, or their housing policy, is fair, or if the RA was overzealous.

On the other hand (puts on cranky old guy hat and knows I'm going to get flamed for it)... folks, college students are adults, and this is how adults are treated.

NC State's Office of Student Conduct Director Paul Cousins (you know he must be a popular guy right now) makes a point (which I think is a little overblown) that the whole Abu Ghraib prison investigation started on the basis of a few digital photos.

Over at urban legend research site Snopes.com, they've got a whole section of racy stories that spread over e-mail, voicemail and fax (in pre-internet days), including a few that caused people to lose their jobs --
just because they sent a saucy e-mail that got forwarded all over the
world (again, some sexual content follows -- you've been warned -- here, here and here. For nonsexual e-mail escapades, check out these recent stories of folks losing their jobs over flaming e-mails about ketchup and a ham sandwich.)

All this is just a reminder that people pay attention to what you put online, for better or for worse.

And here's the thing about digital content: Once it's put up, it's potentially out there forever.

Maybe it gets picked up in a search engine's cache, or the Internet Archive or someone out there saves it to their hard drive.

Maybe that photo that you think is hilarious
now, that your best buddy took of you while you were passed out face
down hugging the toilet, next to a beer bong and a half-smoked bowl,
bareassed and covered with black Sharpie (note: not a personal anecdote) -- maybe that's not going to be so funny 5 years later when you're trying to establish your business bonafides.

But sure, all those are future regrets, which you can worry about when you're old. (Like, 30.)

For right now, it's just wise to remember: People will see what you put online.
Whether it's because your mom stumbles on it, or someone with a grudge
against you sends a link, or just plain bad luck -- if you post stuff
online, people will see it. It's the nature of the beast. So just think
a little bit while you post.

That's it for now, talk to you later. Thanks. -- Joe

Tag:

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

They should be glad they haven't been arrested for underage drinking by the police.  I'm always baffled by the level of stupidity when people videotape or photograph themselves doing illegal things.  I've seen all sorts of idiocy in regards to this, even a gang initiation drive-by where one of the idiots in the car videotaped everyone else in the vehicle and the murder.  Frankly, if they got in trouble with the school, then I'm glad.  Public displays of stupidity shouldn't go without consequence.  I know that sounds harsh, but really.  They posted it online???  Idiots.

Bill, the Wildcat
http://journals.aol.com/knightbek/TheWildcatsLair

Anonymous said...

In Naperville IL you get arrested for just being underage & near someone underage drinking. Nope, don't have to have a beer in your hand! It is controversial but the officers feel it will help. There is also a city I believe in MI which tickets you if you swear...kinda like the movie Demolitian Man I guess! HA! Well, I think of it this way, if this was a photo of a guy in a room with his clothes off & a girl naked passed out on the bed or a guy holding a gun? Oh the gun wasn't loaded...right! So video surveilance can't be used? You put it on your site then guess what, you deserve to go to jail!

Anonymous said...

What an interesting post.  I have a roomate who updates all these pictures of her and her friends drinking and making cheers on her blog and screeeeeen saver on saturday nights and goes to church sunday mornings =P.  

My opinion is a little torn between being consistent with the law for underaged drinking and knowing that drinking is social and college students do it.  I think the RA shouldn't have made a deal out of it, but having your picture taken while doing something illegal is your own fault.  I don't think photos make good evidence, either.  But anywayz, yeah, you're responsible for your photos.  

You make a good point that we should be cautious of what we send/upload on the internet.  SOME ONE will see it, and it will belong on someone's computer SOME WHERE.  Saying that makes me regret some of the things I posted online that I shouldn't have.  Hehe.

Anonymous said...

Dear Joe,
Wow ..unbelievable...very compelling..
thanks...
natalie

Anonymous said...

It doesn't even have to be permanent. Skype, which is an internet phone service, does not always record conversations [[it's an option, I think]] and you can just leave an impression with someone. If you start talking to someone on Skype while you're high as the heavens themselves, then it's your fault. Personally, I would just avoid all situations and cameras myself-- I'm something of a photophobic anyways.