Honeypots mailing list archives
Re: Legal Question about privacy
From: "t. elam" <tee () speakeasy net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Stefan Kelm wrote:
That is not what several lawyers have told me. Just because it is technically feasible to monitor some technology (e.g., 802.11, cordless phones...) that does *not* make the expectation of privacy go away, nor make it legal to monitor it.
for the legal geeks out there, the case that governs privacy issues is katz. v us, which is when the interpretation of the fourth amendment switched from a property view to a privacy one. this case can be found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=389&page=347 the most often cited bit is from the concurring opinion of justice harlon, which reads in part: As the Court's opinion states, "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." The question, however, is what protection it affords to those people. Generally, as here, the answer to that question requires reference to a "place." My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not "protected" because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable. so, when trying to decide if a defendant had an "expectation of privacy" in regards to his/her actions the court is going to 1) look at whether or not the person believed they had an expectation of privacy and took such steps towards that goal and 2) if the expectation of privacy the person was trying to exhibit is one that society agrees with. cheers, t .............. just t. ..............
Current thread:
- Re: Legal Question about privacy Dan Bernard (Jul 23)
- Re: Legal Question about privacy Dave Dittrich (Jul 24)
- Re: Legal Question about privacy Stefan Kelm (Jul 28)
- Re: Legal Question about privacy t. elam (Jul 28)
- Re: Legal Question about privacy Stefan Kelm (Jul 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Legal Question about privacy dave kleiman (Jul 24)
- Re: Legal Question about privacy Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 24)
- RE: Legal Question about privacy dave kleiman (Jul 24)
- Re: Legal Question about privacy Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 24)
- RE: Legal Question about privacy dave kleiman (Jul 24)
- Re: Legal Question about privacy Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 24)
- Re: Legal Question about privacy Jack Cleaver (Jul 24)
- Re: Legal Question about privacy Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 24)
- Re: Legal Question about privacy Dave Dittrich (Jul 24)