ENGLISH COMPOSITION 1101

Dr. Melina Probst

J. Avitia 05/08/16

JOE JEFFREYS VS FARMERS UNITE

With the advance in computer technology and Online Social Networking comes a great
concern about privacy. Lets take a look at the case of Mr. Joe Jeffreys, former Teacher, and
currently farmer from the Illinois countryside. He was one of the first users to sign in to the
online dating site Farmers Unite, which specialized in matching farmers across the United States.
Being always busy, Joe had a hard time meeting other people as not everyone understands the
time constrains of the trade. He decided to create a dating profile in the site, but unfortunately
Joe was not completely honest while signing up. He didnt answer accurately on his personal
stats and doubled his income. The site requires users to accept the terms of use before charging
their fees. Joe disregarded scrutinizing this step and rushed to get his profile online. He did not
realize that the dating site specified in the terms that third party websites have access to the
information shared with Farmers Unite. This brought Joe bad consequences: his profile misled
other users, his identity got stolen and used online, and the IRS contacted him triggering an audit
for tax fraud. If Joe Jeffreys were to sue Farmers Unite online dating site for the mishaps in his
experience with the site, chances are that he could lose the case as a consequence of disclosing
his information online without the proper care.
Sharing our information online is a matter that should not be taken lightly. Like James
Gleick wrote in his essay How Google dominates us, Google, along with social networks and
other sites are there not only with the purpose of improving social lifestyles and advanced

computer science, but to make a profit in the process. Joes experience is a clear example of the
consequences of not fully understanding and scrutinizing the fine print in the terms of use. The
author states The rise of social networking upends the equation. Users of Facebook choose to
reveal even to flaunt aspects of their private lives to at least some of the public world. Which
aspects and which part? On Facebook the user options are notoriously obscure and subject to
change. (para. 48). Basically, James Gleick is saying that we choose to disclose our private
lives and information online without fully understanding the risks that this can bring, and this
websites often change their rules and options to accommodate their goals. Users should be aware
of the terms of use and changes in website policies.
Every time we sign in on a site and update our online profiles we should be aware that
this information gets to be a new addition of our Digital Citizenship. In his writing, The
Information, How the Internet gets inside us, Adam Gopnik talks about how Google makes
finding anything online incredibly fast, the dream feature of the now obsolete Book Index used
in libraries. This search engine along with social media and other sites facilitates sharing
information, statistics and sensitive data. Any wrongdoings will stay filed somewhere online,
perhaps forever. By Joe signing up on Famers Unite, he added more information about himself to
the internet, some of it false, and now that online information is part of his digital citizenship. In
his case, IRS agents and perhaps other companies just had to type his name in the search engine
and all his personal stats and social network profiles showed up. All his profile is at the reach of
their keyboards.
If Joe ends up winning his case against the Farmers Unite, he still must deal with his
identity exposure and theft problem. As Daniel J. Solove states in his paper for Scientific
American, called The End of Privacy the internet never forgets. Broad-based exposure of

personal information diminishes the ability to protect reputation by shaping the image that is
presented to others. (para. 14). He also complicates this matter further in his article with the
concept of how Social Networking Sites allow seemingly trivial gossip to be distributed to a
worldwide audience, sometimes making the people the butt of rumors shared by billions of users
across the Internet. Daniel Solove shows us one more reason on why Joe Jeffreys case is a hard
one to win. Privacy Issues on the Internet have slowly raised concern in the online community,
especially related to social networks, dating sites, online companies collecting and sharing data
and information of all kinds, like the one that we might share in our profiles. Sharing our
information online should be done considering what we really want the world to know about us.
As he states, The closest U.S. privacy law comes to a legal doctrine akin to copyright is the
appropriation tort, which prevents the use of someone elses name or likeness for financial
benefit. Unfortunately, the law has developed in a way that is often ineffective against the
privacy threats now cropping up. (para. 28). He continues, The right to withdraw from the
public gaze at such times as a person might see fit is embraced within the right of personal
liberty, declared the Georgia Supreme Court in 1905. Today, however, the tort does not apply
when a persons name or image appears in news, art, literature, or on social media. (para. 28). In
other words, Daniel J. Solove believes that the privacy law in the U.S. needs to be overhauled.
And until then, cases like the one that Joe Jeffreys is involved in wont resolve with a desirable
outcome.
Taking in consideration Joe Jeffreys perspective, he felt deceived, the site like many other
companies carefully camouflaged their policies under disclaimers and fine print. Besides, who
really puts time and attention to terms of use? What Joe and any online user needs to realize is
that sites like Famers Unite get backed up following current law regulations. Its not a crime to

describe your business policies in a conspicuous manner, after all, Farmers Unite disclosed all
the terms of use like the current law requires.
In regards to Joe Jeffreys Case and after analyzing the authors concepts on their writings
we can point out that author James Gleick establishes that search engines like Google and Social
Networking sites are pushing computing boundaries, yet making a profit is still their main goal,
and that users are disclosing their private life without measuring the risk this entails. Adam
Gopnik stresses the fact that Social Media and Online sites facilitate the sharing of any kind of
information and that anything posted online could be filed somewhere in the Internet, perhaps
forever. And Daniel Solove believes that the US Privacy Law needs to be overhauled to fit
todays privacy matters, and that society needs to develop a better understanding of public and
private life. We can conclude that even though Joe Jeffreys deserves to win his case, this could
be hard because he needed to pay more attention to the terms of use and the fine print stated by
Farmers Unite, and as the authors agree, the way the Privacy Law stands today, the only way to
protect our privacy online is by carefully assessing the risk of disclosing and sharing our
personal stats, not only to the site we are signing in but to the entire world.