There are more ways for people to connect with one another than ever before. For example, Facebook reports that they have over 500 million active users. ¹ The widespread use of social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and LinkedIn ultimately means that evidence is being continually created, and is often available right in the public domain. The usage of social media does not require that someone be tethered to a computer anymore. Almost all social media outlets can be accessed using phones, iPads, and other mobile devices. Facebook alone reports that more than 250 million users are accessing Facebook through their cell phones or other mobile devices. ²

The number of social networking websites and applications available today is staggering. If there is a common interest among a group of people, no matter how obscure, there is almost certainly a website or online organization where they can communicate and collaborate. To cover individual social networking websites and applications in any sort of detail would be outside the scope of this book. In the following section, in broad strokes, are examples of the most common forms of social networking, how people interact with them, and how they can be used as evidence.

A great deal of evidence can be collected from information that is available in the public domain. Examiners should not impersonate someone else, or engage in any activity that might become an invasion of privacy. Creating fake profiles for the purpose of accessing someone’s private profile can raise ethical questions and perhaps even legal questions about such a practice. This is also not necessary because in many cases there are other ways to gather the information without sending a friend request to the person in the first place. This is a limitation in some sense, but working with information available in the public domain can produce a significant amount of evidence that could be of interest in a case.

Most social networking sites have available options to increase the amount of privacy the user has. However, when an account is created with Facebook or MySpace, the default security settings allow other users to see a great deal of information about your profile without having to be your friend or connected to you in any way. This makes sense from the perspective of the companies and organizations that create and supply social media outlets, as it is in their best interest to do everything they can to draw people to their websites. For example, websites geared toward facilitating sexual encounters between people make some of the user profiles viewable for nonmembers of the website. For someone seeking to engage in such an activity, seeing other’s profiles, which could contain such information as location, age, pictures, and sexual interest, would have a greater appeal than a website that would not allow that person to see the information unless they signed up or paid a subscription fee. The purpose in giving some random member information for free is to get the visitor to pay a fee to be able to search for and connect with others in these types of paid sites.

With some websites, such as MySpace, the default privacy settings limit the viewability of a profile by a nonmember to some degree. To see more information, all that is required is to create a dummy profile to make the hidden information available. You would not have to engage the person in any way, either through messaging her or adding her as a friend.

The revenue for social media websites and applications usually comes from advertising. If the websites were locked down with privacy and security as their main objective, it would inhibit their ability to have maximum user traffic. While enhanced privacy options are available with these websites, for the users there is always a trade-off when these security measures are employed. Usually, when a user places enhanced privacy or security on their information, the convenience of using the social media outlets can be decreased. With almost all forms of digital information and devices, people tend to err on the side of convenience. Typically, the more security that is in place, the harder it is to share your information with others, which makes it more difficult to connect with people in social media websites and applications. Since the primary purpose of social networking is in fact to network with others, it is not difficult to understand why someone might risk their information for the sake of convenience, if they even consider privacy to be a priority in the first place.

The choices made by people for convenience over security when using social media extend beyond the privacy settings on their profile or account. Imagine that you had an account with ten different social media websites. One of the most efficient ways to increase your security would be to isolate them from one another by using different e-mail addresses, passwords, and usernames for each of these websites. This would dramatically reduce the likelihood that if someone found one of your online profiles, they would be able to track them all down. However, this would also be extremely inconvenient, as you would have to manage ten e-mail accounts, and remember ten different passwords and usernames. While behavior such as described here is not unheard of, it is rare. When it comes to usernames and e-mail addresses used to create accounts with social media networking websites and applications, people tend to be predictable. If someone has a username they prefer, they will use it whenever they possibly can (if it is not already taken by someone else), and the same is true with e-mail addresses. If a person creates an e-mail address for the sole purpose of engaging in activity that they would not want others to find out about, it is common for them to use that same e-mail address or username for all the social media websites and applications. So if an examiner is able to discover that e-mail address on one social media website, or on a computer or cell phone, it is probable that they will find more if they exist. There are websites available for doing social media searches that can be of great assistance in locating information about a person’s online presence, such as Spokeo (www.spokeo.com). You can check your exposure on Spokeo’s site for free. If you are concerned about what is revealed, you can follow these steps to have Spokeo remove your information from their database:

Imagine that you could say whatever you wanted without any repercussions or consequences. This is how many people function in online environments. Much of the realm of social media allows for anonymity, and when people believe that their identity cannot be tied to their comments or actions online, they are much less inhibited with what they say or post.

Evidence of how anonymity affects the way people communicate can be seen all over the web. All you have to do to see this is go and read the comments posted by people on websites and message forums. People say hateful things about and to people that you must believe is not the way they are in real life, unless of course they want to spend most of their time in interactions with others getting punched in the nose. The beauty of the Internet is you can say something that would in many cases cause a physical altercation, but since the other person can’t reach through your monitor and grab you, you are safe to say anything you want.

It is doubtful that someone would say in a post on a news site comment that the best situation for handling a person accused of a crime is to skip a trial and just kill them. Yet you can see these kinds of posts on nearly any news site that allows comments on their news stories.

Social media evidence works best when it is a part of a body of evidence, meaning that it is usually optimal to use that information in conjunction with evidence gathered from other sources, such as cell phones and computers. However, an examination can be performed successfully with only the information available from social networking sites and other information available online.

Online services like Facebook, MySpace, and others resist giving user profile content in cases unless they are served with a criminal subpoena. Citing the Stored Communications Act, Facebook has successfully resisted complying with civil subpoenas for user content. However, in a recent decision by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, New York, Judge Jeffrey Arlen Spinner³ ruled that Facebook and MySpace would in fact have to turn over private information. Included here is an excerpt from the ruling:

Information on how to subpoena records from social media sites is covered in Chapter 20.

In this chapter we looked at the widespread use of social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and LinkedIn. We also covered the privacy and security issues connected to social media. We discussed the anonymity factor, and some of the different ways to collect social media evidence with some examples of how this evidence can be used in cases. We also looked at the issues with getting information from online services in civil cases and cited a recent case that may open the door to making this information easier to obtain.