Here’s an intriguing question:  Does the internet make people more stupid or have they always been this stupid but the internet simply showcases it for all to see?  In yet another example of how social networking sites can work to a person’s detriment, 20 year-old college junior Joshua Lipton attended a Halloween party dressed as a prisoner in a striped black & white shirt and orange jumpsuit with the word “Jail Bird” emblazoned on it.

Sounds harmless, right?  Well, it would have been had Lipton not been charged in a drunk driving accident 2 weeks earlier that seriously injured another person.  While Lipton himself didn’t post these pictures, one of the other victims of the crash found them on another Facebook user’s profile that was accessible from Lipton’s Facebook page.  The end result?  The prosecutor got a hold of the pictures and presented them to the judge at the sentencing hearing and argued that they showed a lack of remorse by Lipton.

While Lipton might have only received probation, the judge sentenced him to 2 years in prison instead.  The judge later admitted that the pictures impacted his decision.  He noted that Lipton was mocking the possibility of going to prison after a near-fatal accident.  So the judge indulged him. 

The moral of the story:  ALWAYS be careful about what you post online, especially when it comes to photographs.  A picture truly is worth a thousand words.  Nowadays, embarassment should be the least of your concerns.  They can have a real impact upon your legal rights.  Just ask Joshua Lipton. 

Kudos to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Last week, the court ruled that ISPs can’t release personal information about their New Jersey users without a valid subpoena.  The court, in a unanimous 7-0 ruling, found that the New Jersey Constitution gives its residents greater protection against unreasonable searches than the U.S. Constitution does.  In the case before the court, the court ruled that the police were required to first obtain a grand jury subpoena before learning a woman’s identity from an ISP.  Her ISP apparently released this information at the request of the police. 

This is an important decision.  First, the New Jersey Supreme Court is one of the more highly regarded state courts in the United States.  Other state courts wrestling with these types of issues will undoubtedly look to see how the New Jersey court decided this case.  Second, it illustrates the continued rise of “state constitutionalism.”  People typically don’t realize that the federal constitution sets a “floor” on a person’s constitutional rights, not a “ceiling.”  In other words, a state court can’t rule that its state’s constitution gives less protection than the federal one does, but can find that the state constitution gives more—at least to its own residents.

Given the perception that the U.S. Supreme Court is less friendly (and somewhat hostile) to privacy rights—especially when it comes to the rights of law enforcement to obtain personal data in these post-9/11 times—combined with the continued paralysis in Congress over individual privacy rights, a ruling from a state’s highest court on issues such as this serves as an implicit rebuke at the lack of leadership at the federal level.  While it’s only one state so far that has now recognized a reasonable expectation of privacy for internet users, it’s got to start somewhere.  Let’s hope other states follow suit.