Hey, Rapunzel, what's your Facebook (TM) status?

California is considering a bill that would give parents access to their children's Facebook (TM) pages. From the article, I think there are more weaknesses than strengths to the proposed bill. I agree that the security settings should default to most secure. I have a list of weaknesses however. 

First, parents would supposedly have to ask Facebook to remove content only and it appears to only deal with text, not photos or apps (personally, the idiotic apps and comments my eleven year old cousin disseminates reflect more ridiculously than her atrociously spelled updates). Would the override extend to the "Account" in addition to the "Page"? Could a parent be able to manipulate more than just content? There is also no mention of whether or how the parent's reach would change once the child would become of age, whether Facebook monitors the child's coming of age, or whether the content is completely destroyed or merely cached & stored on a FB server (potentially outside the parent's own jurisdiction, ie California). Facebook also sounds like it would be surrendering its proprietary rights over the posted content to parents, which is inconsistent (and unfair) to the proprietary rights it maintains over other users' content. Finally, there does not seem to be a mechanism (other than charging someone with fraud) to prevent one from posing as a parent to gain access to another's Facebook page.

This raises interesting questions about Lisa Austin's individual right to self-presentation (Austin 2010)* as well as invasions of privacy and trespass. As we've seen, torts of invasion of privacy are recognized in some circumstances and not others and court orders impeding accessing an individual's Facebook page have been upheld. I think it may be recognized in this case, although the arguments for child safety may stymie them. I think some of the comments make good points about the need to be an involved parent, but one who doesn't need to rely on indirect channels to parent their kids. What I do find troubling is the automatic assumption that children deserve reduced privacy. I come from the perspective that treating kids with dignity, respect and integrity ensures positive communication that would render moot the need for asking Facebook for more control. I guess I also think that the steps taken depend on the age of the child/adolescent. 

Photo credit: Rapunzel in the castle from Johnny Gruelle's illustration for the Gutenberg Project, Wikimedia Commons 2011. The image is fitting because Rapunzel was trapped by her witch-mother in a castle and told the world was a scary place to be and that the only person she could trust was her controlling mother. Unfalsifiable, clearly.

* Lisa Austin, "Privacy and the Private Law: The Dilemma of Justification," (2010) 55 McGill L J 165 at 203.

Summarizing history

On February 10th, I volunteered to report on history as it unfolded in an Ontario Superior Court of Justice courtroom on a freezing cold Ottawa afternoon.

The Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) canvassed the University listserv for volunteers to follow and report on the Mungwarere Trial. Jacques Mungwarere was charged with committing genocide during the Rwandan Genocide. He was located near Windsor, ON, in 2009. Following the prosecution of Desire Munyaneza, he is the second person to be prosecuted in Canada under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (Department of Justice).

The first week was an intense week of procedural motions and on Monday, February 11th, the Crown was scheduled to move for an indictment. It was an exciting opportunity to witness the practice of international law firsthand and to apply (and learn the French equivalents of) some of the legal terms I learned over the last few months. Students listened to the proceedings in pairs and then prepared a summary. It was a great learning and mentoring opportunity that also enabled me to contribute to the CCIJ's important work.

SCC Decision on Omar Khadr

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned what could have led to the repatriation of Omar Khadr from the Guantanamo Bay detention centre where he has been held for more than 6 years. (CBC News).

While deeply dismayed at the continuing injustice, what the SCC called Khadr's "[continued violation] of rights to life, liberty and security of person", the SCC reflected an hesitation to overstep its jurisdiction. It concluded that the precedent of forcing the government to overstep its boundaries in international relations outweighed Khadr's Article 1 Charter rights. The SCC outlined the severity and urgency of the situation, as well as the initial violation of Khadr's rights at the initial stages of interrogation including the exchange of information to American authorities that resulted in his imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay. There is late-blooming public outcry to release Khadr from US custody and have him tried in Canada. It is hoped that the government, in light of the evidence, will make the decision to return Khadr to Canada.

There are disturbing implications for the SCC decision. First, in light of questionable interrogation tactics, charges of torture, extraordinary rendition and the persistence of the death penalty, it is shocking that Canada would have handed over Khadr to American authorities, let alone allow him to remain in their custody. The arguments articulated in opposition to the Safe Third Country Agreement are absent in this case it would seem. It is hypocritical that Canada maintains its reputation as a refuge from US extradition for Americans facing the death penalty or the draft, while simultaneously refusing to help one of its own citizens - regardless of his actions.

Secondly, there has been little or no action taken on the basis that Khadr was charged as a minor and should, therefore, be entitled to be treated as such, including protection under laws governing the rehabilitation and prosecution of child soldiers, in accordance with the principles set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Third, the government's inaction, similar to the inaction on the Kazemi and Arar cases, is a further reminder that no Canadian anywhere or at anytime can be assured of their protection by Canadian authorities overseas. Furthermore, the indication that the Khadr case will continue to be a political football flies in the face of our civic values and demonstrates the shameless self-promotion of Canada's political parties.

One wonders at the ability of the SCC to, on the one hand, strike down the use of security certificates but draw the line at Khadr.

The Supreme Court decision indicates that balance of power is alive and well in Canada, and that healthy debate about the future of human rights and civic values is still to come. This is coming at a very high cost to the action taken on human rights law. Similar to the Arar case, it seems like the Court is only delaying the inevitable reparations the Canadian government will have to make for the wrongful betrayal and imprisonment of one of its own by not sending a stronger message to the government to repatriate Omar Khadr.

AIDSLEX.org

I am a member of the HIV/AIDS Legal Network. The Network recently launched a database of experts and information for those working on the multiple facets of HIV/AIDS. Check it out if you need answers to questions about AIDS, law, drugs, access and human rights.


www.aidslex.org


If you would like to know more about the work of the HIV/AIDS Legal Network, click here.