Privacy rights + vengeful coworkers + Government regulations = the reason why you need to be more careful what you put on facebook.

Beyond my little equation, this woman will win back her coverage and whatever money she inevitably will sue for if she can prove that her doctor told her to go on vacation ("Miss Smith, I prescribe two trips to Chippendales and call me in the morning") and that she informed her company of her plans and had their approval.

At a Kaplan prep class for a graduate school test, the instructor said that he knew for a fact that many schools admissions have access to a special type of Facebook admin rights where they can view profiles that are "locked" or "private".

I can see why her coworker would turn her in. The coworkers are paying the premiums for her tropical vacation. I'm not sure they signed up for that. Shame on Blanchard for taking advantage of them. I hope she learned her lesson; though some people never do.

Too many people these days who milk the system; whether it's Workers' Compensation or Short/Long Term Disability. It costs all of us and it makes it all the more difficult for people who are legitimately unable to work. An insurance company who is paying your wages while you're off work has every right to ensure that benefits (wages) paid to a claimant continue to be legit.

"the instructor said that he knew for a fact that many schools admissions have access to a special type of Facebook admin rights where they can view profiles that are "locked" or "private"."
And I think that's a load of crap. School admissions do not have some magical override on privacy policies. I wouldn't have been able to take anything else the "instructor" said seriously after something like that.

A picture or multiple pictures are just extremely small slices of a person's life. It doesn't represent the whole of person's life. There will be times when a manic person will be placid, or an agoraphobic person will go out in public.

As long as someone is going to an accredited physician, I'm going to wait for the doctor's word - the expert - instead of the opinions of bean counters.

This behaviour is very typical of Canadians, I'm sorry to say. We are an entire nation of schemers and scammers who feel entitled to happiness and wealth beyond our imagination. A year and half of being paid benefits over depression? Give me a damn break. Her co-workers are sacrificing their hard-earned money - literally taking food off of their family's tables - in order to fund this woman's vacations and strip club escapades.

That's what they get for living in a country that punishes hard wrok and rewards scheming and scamming.

This whole issue reflects an underlying that social media can be our friend but it can also be our foe. There is no straight cut line delineating professional and personal lives. Not anymore. It does not matter which country you are from or live, this is a pervasive issue demonstrating that online behavior have offline consequences.

This is something I found on another discussion group:

hyphenate says:
Mon Nov 23 17:34:10 PST 2009

There is more to this story than the original article mentions. There is a quote directly from the insurance company that says they did use the Facebook pictures, but the termination of benefits was based on a lot more than just the Facebook information.

Her profile was locked, but she has a Friend list of over 600 people, so someone likely reported her.

And for the depression, you can't "turn on" and "turn off." She was either depressed or not, and I don't think she was--and this is coming from someone who has been diagnosed clinically depressed for ten years. I have had literally no connection with anyone except for about 5 people over the past 6 years, don't go out much at all, except to the doctor's office, and have lost incalcuable numbers of friends simply because I have no motivation to keep in touch. I have lost three of my closest friends, two to death and one to complex circumstances, two heart attacks, financial issues, diabetes, thoughts of suicide (not followed through), and mostly isolation from this disease.

Instead of a knee jerk reaction against the insurer, this situation gets more press from sensationalism from failing to report the entire case. It isn't just in this particular site, but most places. If people have access to the whole case, they will have a more indepth idea of the circumstances, and have a more concrete set of facts on which to base an opinion.

It always goes down to being responsible for what you post. For the most part, if you do something out of dishonesty, most probably this will come to the open.