A very sad story in The Daily Telegraph today (an article by Ian McPhedran), and I am concerned about how we handle social network ethics when it comes to a loss in the community and what happens to the content created by that member.
DAVID Pearce’s Facebook site tells the moving story of a devoted husband and a loving dad – who now won’t be coming home to his family.
The 41-year-old soldier’s piercing blue eyes glow with love for Nicole, his wife of 18 years, and their daughters Stephanie, 11, and Hannah, 6.
Photographs show Trooper Pearce in typical day-to-day scenes involving family outings and quiet weekends at home.
In one image he is proudly showing off a large fish caught during a boating trip.
In another, he sits on a motorbike in the driveway of a suburban home.
A theme of the pictures is the loving bond he shared with his wife and children.
A grieving Nicole Pearce yesterday used her own Facebook site to post one of her favourite pictures of her and David staring lovingly into each other’s eyes – while the girls happily ignore the lovebirds – at a farewell function when he went to the Solomon Islands.
The caption read: “We as a family are so proud of our Davey baby”.
Am I being paranoid or is there a hint here that this information and personal fotos were lifted directly from Facebook, without the express action/permission of the family involved?? Is this album available to people who are not in the Australia network? Or not on Facebook? If the member creates a gated community and guards the gate, should the press be able to print fotos externally to that? Should I, as a blogger, be able to copy and paste private fotos, just because I share that network/gated community? In the past, the press would have to knock on doors asking for private information to furnish the front page of the paper – now they do a quick social search on Flickr or Facebook. How do you feel about that? Maybe it’s not important.. maybe we’ve already lost our privacy…
For the record, I don’t want my personal information and photos published, ok? I better change the Creative Commons Copyright I guess.