Can Social Services Look At My Facebook Page?
Can Social Services look at my Facebook page? This question is often asked by parents. The answer is not entirely straightforward.
It is obvious why Social Workers may wish to look at parent’s Social media to see if they are living the lives that they claim. Facebook may show parents who say they have given up drink to be out partying with a bottle of beer in each hand, or may show photos of a parent with the partner they say they no longer have anything to do with. This would be helpful evidence for the social worker to use in Court to show parents are not walking the walk, even if they are talking the talk.
Research published in The Times
Last year the Times published an article entitled Social Workers “spying” on families through Facebook. What the Times article says is that the study they are referring to found ‘“surveillance” of Facebook accounts was common. Social workers used fake profiles to “friend” parents in cases where their posts were not publicly viewable. They watched parents’ relationships and behaviour, looking out for factors such as abusive partners or drug use.’
The Law
So what is the law on this?
Human Rights Act
- Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private life, your family life, your home and your correspondence
RIPA 2000
- Social workers are employed by local authorities. As such, when they are carrying out their job they are acting as agents for a public authority. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 regulates surveillance of private individuals by public authorities (NB the same rules probably also apply to CAFCASS guardians and reporting officers).
- The 2000 Act regulates this activity not by saying what is unlawful, but by providing a route to give authorisation for specific types of covert surveillance – it’s a piece of shield legislation. That is to say that if a public authority sticks to the requirements of the act it is protected against claims under the Human Rights Act. If it doesn’t it may find itself liable under various bits of law (tort, criminal, human rights, privacy etc etc). Unless of course some other law specifically authorises the activity.
- Surveillance ‘includes monitoring, observing or listening to persons, their movements, conversations or other activities and communications.’
- It is ‘covert’ if it is carried out in ‘a manner calculated to ensure that any persons who are subject to the surveillance are unaware that it is or may be taking place’.
3.4 Whilst a person may have a reduced expectation of privacy when in a public place, covert surveillance of that person’s activities in public may still result in the obtaining of private information. This is likely to be the case where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy even though acting in public and where a record is being made by a public authority of that person’s activities for future consideration or analysis. Surveillance of publicly accessible areas of the internet should be treated in a similar way, recognising that there may be an expectation of privacy over information which is on the internet, particularly where accessing information on social media websites…
3.5 Private life considerations are particularly likely to arise if several records are to be analysed together in order to establish, for example, a pattern of behaviour, or if one or more pieces of information (whether or not available in the public domain) are covertly (or in some cases overtly) obtained for the purpose of making a permanent record about a person or for subsequent data processing to generate further information. In such circumstances, the totality of information gleaned may constitute private information even if individual records do not. Where such conduct includes covert surveillance, a directed surveillance authorisation may be considered appropriate.
3.10 The growth of the internet, and the extent of the information that is now available online, presents new opportunities for public authorities to view or gather information which may assist them in preventing or detecting crime or carrying out other statutory functions, as well as in understanding and engaging with the public they serve. It is important that public authorities are able to make full and lawful use of this information for their statutory purposes. Much of it can be accessed without the need for RIPA authorisation; use of the internet prior to an investigation should not normally engage privacy considerations. But if the study of an individual’s online presence becomes persistent, or where material obtained from any check is to be extracted and recorded and may engage privacy considerations, RIPA authorisations may need to be considered.
3.12 where a public authority has taken reasonable steps to inform the public or particular individuals that the surveillance is or may be taking place, the activity may be regarded as overt and a directed surveillance authorisation will not normally be available.
So what does this mean?
It is clear from the above that lots of things that social workers routinely do might amount to directed or intrusive surveillance. This would include for example turning up early for a visit and listening from outside to see what is happening before ringing the bell, or peering into the window or over the garden fence, or following the family’s car. In the context of Social Media it would include the social worker checking the Facebook profile of the parents in a case to see what they are up to (relationship status, when they are out socialising, who they are friends with), making a note of these things or screenshotting etc.
The Social Worker is probably ok to have a quick look at a parent’s Facebook profile or posts as a one off. It is a pattern of regular checking that would require authorisation to be sought. It also depends how much parents have been told about what the Social Worker plans to do. If the Social Worker says she will be checking Facebook or if this is covered in the Written Agreement then the surveillance would be overt not covert.
A Social Worker using a fake profile to look at Facebook is clearly unlawful. Just because it is commonplace, or because it is done in the context of child protection to safeguard a child, does not change this.
Advice for parents
The safest thing for parents to do is to be very careful what they or anyone else posts on their Social Media. They should check their privacy settings.
Parents should also understand that the fact that evidence has been obtained through covert surveillance does not necessarily mean that the court will disregard it, or that a claim can be brought under the Human Rights Act. As with cases where parents make covert recordings of social workers, the court when presented with such material will have to balance the relevance, strength and importance of the material as against any fairness issues that are raised. Ultimately, if it is likely to be evidence that is going to help the court make sound decisions for a child it may well be considered.
Jo Taylor
July 2020