|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
MobilityBundle Regular user Las Vegas/Boston 120 Posts |
Quote:
On Jul 9, 2014, silvercup wrote: You're touching on two legal paradigms, though you may not realize it. The two paradigms are on opposite ends of a continuum. On one end, the law is stated with relatively little precision, but is relatively widely open to interpretation. The other end has the law being stated with relatively high precision, meaning there is relatively little room for interpretation. Each end of the continuum has advantages and disadvantages. On the low precision/high interpretation end, one advantage is relatively high flexibility. That is, when unusual or unexpected situations occur (... as are often brought with new technology, for example), the law can be interpreted and made to apply to those new situations in a manner that is in accordance with justice. A disadvantage is relatively low predictability -- that's what you seem to be hitting on, and rightfully so. That is, if nobody knows what the word "reasonable" means in a particular context, it's anyone's guess what is or isn't permissible. The other end of the spectrum offers high predictability... everything is spelled out in black and white, up front. The disadvantage there is that the law itself becomes somewhat unwieldy. It's slow to change, and hard (=expensive) to get definitive answers to questions, even though such answers may readily exist. In the US, we employ both ends of the spectrum in different contexts. The tax code, for example, is pretty precise and explicit. (But try sitting down and reading it.) Criminal law -- especially Constitutional aspects of criminal law -- tend to be more on the interpretational side of the spectrum. I'm not 100% sure why this is, although I have some guesses. The first is just historic... we inherited our law from England, much of which was in the Common Law tradition. Another guess is that when relatively important matters are at stake, interpretational flexibility seems desirable. That is, if someone gets shafted by an unintended consequence of the tax code, then all that's at stake is money. If someone gets shafted by an unintended consequence of criminal law, they lose liberty or life. We don't want either, but we want the latter even less than the former. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Note, however, that the legal meaning of the word "reasonable," and it's applicability to a particular case, is explained in detail in a judge's instructions to a jury.
|
|||||||||
MobilityBundle Regular user Las Vegas/Boston 120 Posts |
About the original article, and whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy outdoors...
It might be interesting to contrast this with an old Trade Secret case from Texas in 1970. The facts of that case, briefly: DuPont was building a new manufacturing facility for producing methanol using a fancy new, secret, technique. During construction, folks at DuPont noticed a plane circling overhead. They traced the plane back to its pilot and co-pilot, Rolfe and Gary Christopher. The Christophers had been hired by an undisclosed third party to fly overhead and take photographs of the plant as it was being built. Apparently, to the trained eye, these photographs revealed certain non-obvious details about DuPont's secret methanol process. DuPont sued the Christophers, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. DuPont eventually got a court order compelling the Christophers to reveal who hired them. But not before an appeal (... an "interlocutory appeal," for those who enjoy civil procedure.) The Christophers argued: Quote:
[T]hat they committed no "actionable wrong" in photographing the DuPont facility and passing these photographs on to their client because they conducted all of their activities in public airspace, violated no government aviation standard, did not breach any confidential relation, and did not engage in any fraudulent or illegal conduct. In short, the Christophers argue that for an appropriation of trade secrets to be wrongful there must be a trespass, other illegal conduct, or breach of a confidential relationship. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, interpreting Texas state law (... under the Erie doctrine, for those who REALLY enjoy civil procedure) disagreed. Read the full opinion here. (It's safe to skip down to the paragraph beginning "It is true, as the Christophers assert, that the previous trade secret cases have..." Although I do like the first line: "This is a case of industrial espionage in which an airplane is the cloak and a camera the dagger. ") The opinion has some interesting statements, especially when read in the context of this thread. |
|||||||||
silvercup Loyal user 223 Posts |
Quote:
On Jul 9, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: When reading what you post I wonder if we spoke in person that there would be more communication or would it be as it is here? I say that because often you either knowingly or unknowingly twist my meaning. I've decided that it is futile to communicate with you here. Maybe if our paths cross we will enjoy conversation. Best to you & your's Sir. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27294 Posts |
From the cited decision: "We should not require a person or corporation to take unreasonable precautions to prevent another from doing that which he ought not do in the first place. Reasonable precautions against predatory eyes we may require, but an impenetrable fortress is an unreasonable requirement, and we are not disposed to ..."
interesting.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
MB, interesting case, but I would contend that there are probably significant differences between the surveillance safeguards one would ask of private entities and that of public ones.
In any case, while we can certainly agree that there are always gray areas in issues like this, that is not to say there aren't also some clearly demarcated areas as well. I think the "five senses" technological distinction Bob puts forth above, is a relevant distinction. I would add the permanent collection of data that consistently involves non-targets as well. To my mind, those should always require a warrant. I think the Constitution is pretty clear that you can surveil particular people for a particular reason with particular cause for a particular period of time with a warrant. What you can't do is surveil everybody for no reason in the present and retain that data in the hope of discovering some crime in the future.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5926 Posts |
Sure you can. They call them "photo enforced traffic lights"
|
|||||||||
MobilityBundle Regular user Las Vegas/Boston 120 Posts |
Quote:
On Jul 10, 2014, landmark wrote: Absolutely. I brought up the trade secret case as a (hopefully) interesting counterpoint... a case with similar facts, but whose legal issues are miles apart. Quote:
I think the Constitution is pretty clear that you can surveil particular people for a particular reason with particular cause for a particular period of time with a warrant. What you can't do is surveil everybody for no reason in the present and retain that data in the hope of discovering some crime in the future. The last proposition isn't so clear I guess. The Supreme Court has an interesting relationship with technology and the Fourth Amendment (... which governs warrantless search and seizure). Three cases from the 80s come to mind, including two aerial surveillance cases: 1. In one case, cops used thermal imaging equipment to detect someone was growing a bunch of marijuana in their house. The cops were on a public street, and the thermal imaging equipment only analyzed heat patterns from the publicly-viewable exterior of the house. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court tossed the search, likening it to essentially looking through the exterior wall, even though as a strict matter of physics that's not what happened. 2 and 3. Cops used aerial surveillance to find more marijuana growers. In one case, cops found plants in plain view ("plane view?") in a guy's backyard, and in another the cops found plants through the ceiling of a greenhouse, whose walls were otherwise opaque. In both cases, the Supreme Court upheld the searches, basically using the attempted rationale of the trade secret case: the cops were in public airspace, weren't interfering with the normal use of the property, etc. Given the precedents of 2 and 3, I have a hard time finding Constitutional problems with the satellite imagery. PR problems, sure. But not Constitutional problems. |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Landmark wrote:
Quote:
I think the Constitution is pretty clear that you can surveil particular people for a particular reason with particular cause for a particular period of time with a warrant. What you can't do is surveil everybody for no reason in the present and retain that data in the hope of discovering some crime in the future. Tom Cutts wrote: Quote:
Sure you can. They call them "photo enforced traffic lights" Not a very good counter-example. The traffic camera is in a particular place for a particular crime only. If suppose, they had mics on the camera that could overhear conversations in the cars as they passed, and they heard someone boast of their counterfeit magic factory, the evidence would be thrown out. There are much better counter-examples. Examples that should be declared illegal IMO, but better examples.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16532 Posts |
Integrated Sensor Information System. The ISIS program. When a crime looks like it is going to occur, the system will verbally warn the perpetrator and then if necessary alert the nearest police officer. To prevent crimes before they happen. It is designed to work with the extensive network of CCTV cameras already installed on buses and trains as well as in stations, airports and on the street. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/62229......pen.html
Isis is the godless, the church, and it's members are it's body. The Isis cr-isis. You are given a new crisis once a fortnight now. Â
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Salguod Nairb Room 101 0 Posts |
Which would you rather have?
Or
We shall meet in the place where there is no darkness...
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Me, I got nothing to hide (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |