Dandashli 1

Ida Dandashli
ENGLI 1101-029
Professor Probst
2 December 2015
Essay 4: Joe Jefferys vs. Farmers Unite

As technology continues to advance, peoples privacy rights become more difficult to

maintain. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, privacy is defined as the quality or
state of being apart from company or observation. Despite having privacy rights in our
Constitution, the people of America are under constant observation by investigation
organizations such as the IRS and the NSA. When it comes to online interaction, many users are
under the assumption that their conversations with others are just between them. What they may
not realize is that anything that is posted on the Internet can be traced and found, regardless of
whether or not the posts were deleted. But to what extent should peoples privacy rights be
protected? In the case of Joe Jefferys, he should not win his case against the Farmers Unite
website because he failed to read their terms of use, falsely portrayed his personal information,
and failed to consider the consequences of using the Internet.
To begin with, several interactive websites include a terms of use agreement, which is
used to set the rules and guidelines of a website that must be accepted by its users in order for
them to access the site. This agreement usually includes a privacy policy agreement as well,
which informs users about the types of information and data the site can permissibly obtain and
observe. In Joe Jefferyss case, he failed to read through the Famers Unites terms of use
agreement because he was too eager to start forming his online profile. According to the
scenario, What Joe didnt know was that Farmers Unite specified in the terms of use that a third

Dandashli 2
party may have access to the information shared with Farmers Unite or with another user over
the site. As an Internet user, it is vital to read website agreements to prevent accidently allowing
a third party or other users to gain access to personal information. Farmers Unite is not at fault in
this scenario because they specifically specified who had the right to view Jefferyss personal
profile. Jefferys failed to take it upon himself to read through the agreement, and therefore
should not win his case if he were to sue Farmers Unite.
Furthermore, Jefferys not only failed to read the terms of use, but he also falsely
portrayed himself on the Farmers Unite website. He exaggerated his height and income in an
attempt to attract more women to his profile. As previously stated, the Farmers Unite terms of
use agreement allows a third party permission to access users personal profiles. Nicholas Carr
states, The faster we surf across the web the more links we click and pages we view the
more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us (338).
This third party includes the government, particularly the IRS, which already has access to
Jefferyss personal information. Since Jefferys lied about his income and taxes, the IRS is free to
accuse him of fraud. If Jefferys were to sue against Farmers Unite, he should not win his case
because the site granted the third party access to its users profiles in the terms of use, which
Jefferys failed to read.
Lastly, Jefferys did not consider the overall consequences that come with using the
Internet when he signed up for Farmers Unite. Though it can be seen as unconstitutional, users of
the Internet, some more than others, are constantly being monitored by organizations like the
NSA. The average user cannot prevent this constant surveillance and therefore must take extra
precautions when using the Internet. Daniel J. Solove states, The broad reach of electronic
networking will probably necessitate changes in common law. The threats to privacy are

Dandashli 3
formidable, and people are starting to realize how strongly they regard privacy as a basic right
(376). Over the last few years, people have become accustomed to the fact that what they do on
the Internet is likely being monitored and that their privacy rights are being violated to a certain
extent. In Jefferyss case, he should have known that what he posts on the Farmers Unite website
is likely going to be monitored by some higher authority. Regardless of whether or not this
surveillance is in violation of Jefferyss rights, he should have been aware of the possibilities
when he signed up for Farmers Unite, which is why he should not win his case if he were to sue.
While some believe that Jefferys should not win his case against the Farmers Unite
website, there are others that believe he should win. Others may argue that Jefferyss privacy
rights were violated not only by Farmers Unite, but by the government as well. Though Jefferys
failed to read the terms of use agreement, the government should have no business monitoring
his personal information and activity on the site. Others may also argue that the fact that he lied
about his height and income should not be a reason to accuse him of fraud or assume he is a
seller on the black market. He should be able to use the Internet as he pleases without being
under the surveillance of others.
In conclusion, Joe Jefferys should not win his case against Farmers Unite if he were to
sue because he failed to properly read the terms of use, he posted inaccurate information on his
personal profile, and he did not take into consideration the consequences of being an Internet
user. Failure to read the terms of use agreement was the root of Jefferyss situation with Farmers
Unite. If he had informed himself about the sites rules and regulations prior to creating his
profile, he would have known that Farmers Unite allows a third party access to its users personal
profiles, which may have prevented him from entering false information and getting accused of
fraud by the IRS. Postman claims, Internet users are more easily tracked and controlled; are

Dandashli 4
subjected to more examinations; are increasingly mystified by the decisions made about them;
are often reduced to mere numerical objects (365). As technology continues to advance, it just
gets easier for anyone to find information about anyone and anything. People are becoming more
accustomed to the fact that they are being monitored by others. Jefferyss scenario should serve
as a warning for all users of the Internet.

Dandashli 5
Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas. Is Google Making Us Stupid? The Arlington Reader Fourth Edition. (2014).
338. Print.
Postman, Neil. The Judgment of Thamus. The Arlington Reader Fourth Edition. (2014). 365.
Print.
Solove, Daniel J. The End of Privacy? The Arlington Reader Fourth Edition. (2014). 376.
Print.