The choice of accessibility options can make a Facebook page private or public space Author: Pierre Cabrol, Associate Lecturer IUT Michel de Montaigne. Customers users of social networks such as facebook does not necessarily lend great attention to their accessibility options personal page. They are however likely, if one believes a decision-breaker of 19 October the industrial tribunal in Boulogne Billancourt, said page to make a private space or public space, the latter scenario to the employer to Internet users reveal the information contained therein, including to find the elements of serious misconduct justifying dismissal.
In this case, employees and former employees of a company had formed a virtual club [1], called "club of negative" apparently aimed to harm one of the company executives. One group of employees, F., who reported the practice on his page and had expressed his wish to become a member, one of the former employees of the company replied: "No shit ... and I know who you inducted into the exclusive club Mr. F., because normally there is a whole ritual, first you have to fuck the mouth of your supervisor, all day and without its she realizes it. Then you should make life impossible for several months and only then we can consider your application. An employee of the company, B., adds so by writing to the following: "F. And yes, I need to follow this ritual dictated by our guru X. From Monday S. and I'll see if you respect all that well ... hi hi hi. " Eleven employees of the company with access to that page, one of them made a screenshot, which he transmitted to his superiors. The employer then responds, including dismissal for serious misconduct B, that it challenged before the industrial tribunal.
One issue on which the judges were called upon to decide was the legality of using the screenshot of the Facebook page F to characterize the misconduct committed by B taking on that page the comments reported above. The question was simple a priori. If that page was considered a private space, the employer could not rely on statements made on it by its employee because he would thereby violated his right to respect for private life and that of his Another employee, F. In contrast, if that page was viewed as a public space, the employer was entitled to invoke the content of the comments made on it in support of dismissal [2].
To base their decision on this point, the judges examined the accessibility options chosen by F to its Facebook page. It explained that it had chosen to share his facebook page with his "friends and their friends." It was logical, which they did, to deduce that the accessibility of that page beyond the private sphere, it is limited to persons known and chosen by F, that is to say to his "friends" excluding these friends, who may be unknown to him [3].
What deduct? First, despite extensive media coverage, it is only a first trial court decision and not a long-established case law, which limits its scope. Secondly, a useful precaution for anyone wanting to ensure his facebook page would remain a private space in the state present circumstances, to limit access to it at his own "friends." Finally, it is never wise to write things that might later regret and that relations between users are certainly more peaceful if they were careful to ensure refrain unless compelling reasons, all statements are likely to hurt others.
[1] This could be legally qualified association.
[2] Or any other legal action.
[3] The court failed to ascertain whether he knew or not, friends of friends and if they were also part of his own friends, what could be done.
