she “had no justifiable expectation that h[er] ‘friends’ would keep h[er] profile private.... ” U.S. v. Meregildo, 2012 WL 3264501, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.2012). In fact, “the wider h[er] circle of ‘friends,’ the more likely [her] posts would be viewed by someone [s]he never expected to see them.” Id. Thus, as the Second Circuit has recognized, legitimate expectations of privacy may be lower in e-mails or other Internet transmissions. U.S. v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173, 190 (2d Cir.2004) (contrasting privacy expectation of e-mail with greater expectation of privacy of materials located on a person’s computer). Reid v. Ingerman Smith LLP, No. CV2012-0307(ILG)(MDG), 2012 WL 6720752, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012); see also Tompkins v. Detroit Metro. Airport, 278 F.R.D. 387, 388 (E.D.Mich.2012) (<HOLDING>); Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 285
recognizing that commission is not bound by statutory or common law rules of evidence holding that material posted on a private facebook page that is accessible to a selected group of recipients but not available for viewing by the general public is generally not privileged nor is it protected by common law or civil law notions of privacy holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment holding that it is not holding that the sca does not apply to material that is readily available to the public