Facebook lawyers explain to a judge that privacy on Facebook is nonexistent
Reading through that article, the FB lawyer’s argument is pretty reasonable:<p>> I go into a classroom and invite a hundred friends. This courtroom. I invite a hundred friends, I rent out the courtroom, and I have a party. And I disclose — And I disclose something private about myself to a hundred people, friends and colleagues. Those friends then rent out a 100,000-person arena, and they rebroadcast those to 100,000 people. I have no cause of action because by going to a hundred people and saying my private truths, I have negated any reasonable expectation of privacy, because the case law is clear.<p>Was there more context the article left out about the specific level of privacy the party expected?