There鈥檚 an old saying that the devil makes work for idle hands. So, apparently, does the Internet. A number of British Columbians have found details of their private lives accessible through the search engine Google.
The culprits are websites that specialize in what can only be called blackmail. It works like this.
Judicial tribunals such as the sa国际传媒 Workers鈥� Compensation Board or the sa国际传媒 Securities Commission issue written findings. So do our courts.
Frequently, these findings deal with contentious matters such as injury claims, insider-trading allegations, divorce proceedings and so on. Both from long habit, and for reasons of transparency, judgments of this kind often include large amounts of highly personal material.
Scam artists troll through these data banks, siphon up anything that might be embarrassing or revealing, and post it on their websites. They particularly look for content that gives names, addresses and, in some cases, police mugshots.
Then comes the blackmail. For a small 鈥渇ee,鈥� they announce, they will happily remove anything you find offensive. The price can be anything from $30 to $200.
The Financial Post reported the example of a woman who Googled her name, and found complete details of her divorce settlement. The material contained large amounts of personal information, including the names and ages of her two children, her income for the preceding four years and details of a drawn-out dispute with her ex-husband.
The CBC told the story of an Ontario resident who found a legal document on the Internet that contained descriptions of multiple domestic assaults upon herself.
In these instances, the agency responsible for publishing the material was Globe24h.com, a company based in Romania. But there are a number of these shady operators.
Some specialize in mugshots. In the U.S., sheriffs鈥� departments routinely photograph anyone charged with a crime. Those photos are available for public scrutiny, and people make a living by posting them online, along with details of the alleged offence.
Often, of course, the allegations are not proven, or the case is dismissed before trial. But it can be ruinous to have your mugshot plastered across the Internet, and many will pay to have it removed.
What can be done, however, is another matter. Clearly, these websites are an assault on personal privacy. That is their business model.
But in sa国际传媒, privacy legislation covers only public bodies and companies. It does not apply to individuals, and offshore firms are difficult, if not impossible, to rein in.
Nor would it be easy to define exactly what counts as embarrassing material. And trying to regulate the Internet is a Herculean task. No sooner is one leak plugged than another springs up.
There is, however, the possibility of a solution. Most of the material scraped up by these websites is produced by judicial bodies of one kind or another.
Surely, it should be possible for judges and tribunals to take more care with how they write their findings. Transparency is certainly important. Sufficient evidence must be reported in a judgment to ensure it stands up through the appeal process.
But in divorce settlements, for example, there is no need to commit personal and potentially humiliating details to print. In particular, the identity of any children should be protected.
In effect, we need a rethink of the way evidence and allegations are reported in the digital age. Half a century ago, there was little reason to suppose that court records would be exposed to a global readership. What needed saying could be said.
But times change. People should be able to approach the courts or other such bodies with some assurance of discretion.
Blackmail is too high a price for justice, especially if can be avoided with nothing more strenuous than care with the written word.
