It all depends on your account settings.
A recent landmark ruling of the Supreme Court has defined what "privacy" means when it comes to posting photographs on a Facebook account.
This came after it denied a petition of two of the five students who were barred from attending their high school graduation rites in Cebu on March 2012 for posting their bikini photos on Facebook.
The Writ of Habeas Data
According to law, a writ of habeas data is a legal remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated. It grants the petitioner a chance to question the data and to seek for its “updating, rectification, or destruction.”
The parents of two of the five sanctioned students filed a writ of habeas data asking the SC to order St. Theresa's College (STC) to surrender the controversial photos that school officials allegedly downloaded from the students Facebook accounts.
These photos, they say, were used as basis by STC when they sanctioned their children and disallowed them to march on their high school graduation day.
They said that the school violated their children's right to privacy when STC computer teacher Mylene Rheza Escudero accessed their Facebook accounts, downloaded copies of the pictures and showed their photos to school administrators.
And because the photos show the girls clad in brassieres, smoking inside a bar and drinking hard liquor, the school said the pictures were “lewd, obscene, and immoral."
But, the parents had insisted that their children's Facebook accounts were under “very private” or “Only Friends” setting, safeguarded with a password.
Their children’s disclosure was only limited since their profiles were not open to public viewing, added their parents.
They also said people who are not their children's Facebook friends, including the school officials, are barred from accessing their posts without their knowledge and consent.
"Privacy Rights" on Facebook defined by SC
In its 18-page decision, the SC's Third Division ruled that the STC did not violate the students' right to privacy, adding the petitioners failed to present evidence to prove their claims.
"Without proof that they placed the photographs subject of this case within the ambit of their protected zone of privacy, they cannot now insist that they have an expectation of privacy with respect to the photographs in question," the SC division said.
Escudero claimed it was her students who showed her the controversial pictures of the girls inside a bar.
She said that these students logged into their Facebook accounts and accessed the various photographs of their fellow students.
Ergo, the high court ruled that even if the photos are viewable by "friends only," such setting does not assure absolute privacy.
It said Escudero did not apply "unlawful means" when she got hold of the photos. The court said that the ones at fault in the dissemination of the photos were the friends of the sanctioned minors.
"Respondents were mere recipients of what were posted. They did not resort to any unlawful means of gathering the information as it was voluntarily given to them by persons who had legitimate access to the said posts," the SC said.
"Furthermore, and more importantly, information, otherwise private, voluntarily surrendered by them can be opened, read, or copied by third parties who may or may not be allowed access to such," the SC added. (Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines/GMA News)
ANY COMMENTS?
Feel free to share your reactions and comments down below.