Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Responsibility in Web Services

<< < (4/4)

wraith808:
But Google isn't aggregating the information.  Your ad analogy also leaves something out as you are intentionally submitting your information to an aggregator (the newspaper).  I suppose something in the middle would be more to the point, i.e. I'm walking by and you're talking on your cell phone about leaving the country.  Then I tell someone who robs you.  Did you broadcast to me specifically?  No.  But it was public.  So did I do anything wrong?

Stoic Joker:
But Google isn't aggregating the information.  Your ad analogy also leaves something out as you are intentionally submitting your information to an aggregator (the newspaper).-wraith808 (February 18, 2010, 02:02 PM)
--- End quote ---
Right, Just like the folks on Social Networking sites intentionally submit their personal info to the Social Network - Which is a Public Forum no different then the Personals Column of the Local (equally public) News Paper.

I suppose something in the middle would be more to the point, i.e. I'm walking by and you're talking on your cell phone about leaving the country.  Then I tell someone who robs you.  Did you broadcast to me specifically?  No.  But it was public.  So did I do anything wrong?
--- End quote ---

Hm... (Muddy Waters...) I'll go both ways on this. If someone is having a private (phone) conversation in a public place, and they're keeping their voice low (as a best effort) to avoid broadcasting the information then that would be you. However this does require an overt breach of privacy and intent.

Now (Much closer to the typical Social Networking Herd) If someone was yelling (as they often do) into one of those silly ear-bud widgets. ...Which leaves most of us wondering if they are actually talking to us, are completely insane, or are in the middle of a phone call ... Then it their own fault.

If you lose your wallet and somebody finds it, then strips out the cash and tosses the rest into a dumpster. Did they rob you? No. Were they nice to you & a kind person? (hell) no. Is it your fault for leaving your wallet on the roof of the car when you drove away giving them access to it in the first place? Damn Straight.

wraith808:
This is actually getting quite interesting :)  Let's take it up a notch, shall we?

From The Patriot Post:
The Obama administration has argued that Americans don't enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to their whereabouts as revealed by their cell phones, and therefore warrant-less tapping is allowed. Not only that, but lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" showing where calls were placed or received.

--- End quote ---

Now, you know that your cell phone has a GPS tracking device in it, and you make a call anyway.  If someone uses that information against you, your argument would be that the Obama Administration was correct in their argument?

To take it further still, from the EFF:
Residences. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. This is not just a house as it says in the Fourth Amendment, but anywhere you live, be it an apartment, a hotel or motel room, or a mobile home.

However, even things in your home might be knowingly exposed to the public and lose their Fourth Amendment protection. For example, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations or other sounds inside your home that a person outside could hear, or odors that a passerby could smell (although the Supreme Court has held that more invasive technological means of obtaining information about the inside of your home, like thermal imaging technology to detect heat sources, is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant). Similarly, if you open your house to the public for a party, a political meeting, or some other public event, police officers could walk in posing as guests and look at or listen to whatever any of the other guests could, without having to get a warrant.

--- End quote ---

So, in the case that I am outside of your home, in a public location, do you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy?  It seems to only cover the inside of your home.

Stoic Joker:
This is actually getting quite interesting :)  Let's take it up a notch, shall we?-wraith808 (February 18, 2010, 02:49 PM)
--- End quote ---
Sure, I haven't had this much fun on the Internet in a while :)

From The Patriot Post:
The Obama administration has argued that Americans don't enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to their whereabouts as revealed by their cell phones, and therefore warrant-less tapping is allowed. Not only that, but lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" showing where calls were placed or received.

--- End quote ---

Now, you know that your cell phone has a GPS tracking device in it, and you make a call anyway.  If someone uses that information against you, your argument would be that the Obama Administration was correct in their argument?
--- End quote ---
Well... You're half right. The locality & time are standard items to track on any network, and if the phone carrier wishes to share their logs with the fuzz... Well... (sh)IT Happens.

Now on the second part, which is a rather mind blowing leap regarding warrant-less tapping. No, that ain't fair game for the phone carrier to just hand it over to the fuzz without warrant (pun intended). But that's the hiccup with any law enforcement agency - A never ending game of access - Which was created specifically to keep them honest. 10 years ago that would have been a simple question (answer: hell no), But with fear & the patriot act running rampant George Orwell's popularity is once again soaring.

I come from a time when there was us, and them - The A infamous Them, the fuzz, the man, big brother, etc. There was a core group of people you trusted and held dear, and the rest of the world sucked - Cops? ...Were just another street gang to be avoided.

[Side note] I've been sitting here rereading that last part for the past 20 minutes, and much as it sounds like the opening line of some lame-assed dime novel - I just can't fix it (I've been side tracked about 400 times - I'll try to do better on the next part). [/Side Note]


To take it further still, from the EFF:
Residences. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. This is not just a house as it says in the Fourth Amendment, but anywhere you live, be it an apartment, a hotel or motel room, or a mobile home.

However, even things in your home might be knowingly exposed to the public and lose their Fourth Amendment protection. For example, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations or other sounds inside your home that a person outside could hear, or odors that a passerby could smell (although the Supreme Court has held that more invasive technological means of obtaining information about the inside of your home, like thermal imaging technology to detect heat sources, is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant). Similarly, if you open your house to the public for a party, a political meeting, or some other public event, police officers could walk in posing as guests and look at or listen to whatever any of the other guests could, without having to get a warrant.

--- End quote ---

So, in the case that I am outside of your home, in a public location, do you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy?  It seems to only cover the inside of your home.[/quote]

Slippery slope of intent vs. discretion there. The Castle Doctrine states that you can defend your property with deadly force if being threatened. There is no obligation to flee or prove that one was cornered before taking the offensive. This being countered by proximity and the neighbors having the same options rights.

I actually have a first hand perspective on this, being that the neighbors are rather close, and prone to throw somewhat wild (loud really) parties. Ebonics and lingo aside... my hearing is not what it used to be. So If I can make out the details of the crime you are boasting about committing to your buddies (which I then relay to a cop that happened to be in the neighborhood...because I called them), solely because you were shouting it out in the middle of the yard, loud enough for me to hear next door. ...Hay it's all you. ...But that's the price one pays for waking me up at 2:00am :) <- Now that's (a true story, and) the best example of lacking discretion I can think of.

Intent, on the other hand, would be using a parabolic microphone to hear a whispered conversation in a closed room (where privacy is to be expected).

wraith808:
Hmmm... I can't think of a good comeback for that one.  :)  Well, I hope this pleaserobme thing doesn't lead to anything bad; if it does, I don't know if the courts will see it the same way that you do. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page