Refer to the case In re Verizon Internet Services, Inc., (257 FSupp2d 244)
Facts of the case:
Verizon motioned to quash a subpoena of RIAA for a list of its subscribers who allegedly made available music illegally in a peer-to-peer sharing system.
The court denied Verizon's motion. The subpoena will be served. It doesn't matter that the information need to be "stored" in Verizon's system, the subpoena order is to provide a "copy of a description" of the information. The court also failed to find any undue burden on Verizon for providing such information.
In this age of growing social media almost nothing seems private anymore. When college students sign up for social media sites and allow public access or loose privacy settings they can't expect privacy. A warrant is mostly necessary for things involving privacy, such as search of a house, locker, and password protected files etc. However, social media profiles effectively become public data when privacy settings are not set, and anybody can legally obtain the information publicly displayed by their profile without warrant.
People need to be aware that if their profiles are public to any groups of people, the things they say may incriminate them, e.g. posting malicious or false information on someone is defamation, and even posting criminal thoughts can be viewed as conspiracy to commit a criminal act.
Refer to the case Doe v America Online (AOL) (783 So2d 1010) to answer the following question as below:
Facts of the case:
(1) Doe (plaintiff, anonymous) sued AOL for actions Russell (defendant). Russell solicited sexual act from Doe's son recorded it. Doe claimed AOL provided a medium for Russell to distribute the child pornography.
(2) Doe charged AOL tort for negligence , by failing to monitor its services. AOL motioned to dismiss which was accepted by trial court and affirmed by appeals, both argued that federal internet statute pre-empted civil action by barring suits against internet services. On review by the Florida Supreme Court
The Florida Supreme Court found that federal statute and a previous ruling in Zeran v AOL barred Doe from filing civil law tort against AOL. AOL can't be held liable for the doings of a third party. Doe will probably have a claim against Russell who was also charged for criminal acts.