RE: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 10:07 AM 1/14/05 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops car would send a message Too easy. 5 points for adding to cop's personal car 10 points for adding to cop's spouse's personal car 20 points for adding to cop's mistress' personal car Not sure about point assignments for adding to cop's offspring's car adding to cop's offspring's teacher's car
RE: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 10:07 AM 1/14/05 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops car would send a message Too easy. 5 points for adding to cop's personal car 10 points for adding to cop's spouse's personal car 20 points for adding to cop's mistress' personal car Not sure about point assignments for adding to cop's offspring's car adding to cop's offspring's teacher's car
Re: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of consumer electronics attached to your car, do you have the right to play with it just as you would if it came in the mail? I would certainly expect so... On the other hand, if it appears to be a lost item, you could be a good public citizen and take it to the police to see if anybody claims it... GPS tracker is an ambiguous description, though. GPS devices detect where they are, but what next? A device could record where it was, for later collection, or it could transmit its position to a listener. Tampering with existing recordings might have legal implications, but putting a transmitter-based system in your nearest garbage can or accidentally leaving it in a taxi or mailing it to Medellin all seem like reasonable activities. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Bill Stewart wrote: At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of consumer electronics attached to your car, do you have the right to play with it just as you would if it came in the mail? I would certainly expect so... Attaching it to another car would seem a suitable prank - someone who travels a lot, on an irregular path - a pizza delivery guy, or a real estate agent. Or perhaps a long distance truck. It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops car would send a message Peter Trei
Re: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of consumer electronics attached to your car, do you have the right to play with it just as you would if it came in the mail? I would certainly expect so... On the other hand, if it appears to be a lost item, you could be a good public citizen and take it to the police to see if anybody claims it... GPS tracker is an ambiguous description, though. GPS devices detect where they are, but what next? A device could record where it was, for later collection, or it could transmit its position to a listener. Tampering with existing recordings might have legal implications, but putting a transmitter-based system in your nearest garbage can or accidentally leaving it in a taxi or mailing it to Medellin all seem like reasonable activities. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Bill Stewart wrote: At 12:30 PM 1/12/2005, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? Do you mean that if you discover an unsolicited gift of consumer electronics attached to your car, do you have the right to play with it just as you would if it came in the mail? I would certainly expect so... Attaching it to another car would seem a suitable prank - someone who travels a lot, on an irregular path - a pizza delivery guy, or a real estate agent. Or perhaps a long distance truck. It would take some chutzpa, but tacking onto a cops car would send a message Peter Trei
expectation of privacy
At 09:01 PM 1/12/05 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: It's time to blow the lid off this no expectation of privacy in public places argument that judges and law enforcement now spout out like demented parrots in so many situations. A court refused to hear the case of a man accused of owning unlicensed pharmaceuticals when a pig entered a locked loo. The loo was part of a gas station; the attendant called the pigs. A prostitute was in there too, with him, and the area rife with folks of that profession, FWIW, which is nothing. But the court held reduced expectation of privacy in a public loo. One imagines much fun with anonymous calls when state employees are in such places, but this does not temper our disgust, or desire for karma with extreme prejudice.
[IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
- Forwarded message from David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:46:47 -0500 To: Ip ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Orwell was an amateur djf -- Forwarded Message From: Lauren Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:38:28 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! Dave, It's time to blow the lid off this no expectation of privacy in public places argument that judges and law enforcement now spout out like demented parrots in so many situations. Technology has rendered that argument meaningless -- unless we intend to permit a pervasive surveillance slave society to become our future -- which apparently is the goal among some parties. It is incredibly disingenuous to claim that cameras (increasingly tied to face recognition software) and GPS tracking devices (which could end up being standard in new vehicles as part of their instrumentation black boxes), etc. are no different than cops following suspects. Technology will effectively allow everyone to be followed all of the time. Unless society agrees that everything you do outside the confines of your home and office should be available to authorities on demand -- even retrospectively via archived images and data -- we are going down an incredibly dangerous hole. I use the slimy guy in the raincoat analogy. Let's say the government arranged for everyone to be followed at all times in public by slimy guys in raincoats. Each has a camera and clipboard, and wherever you go in public, they are your shadow. They keep snapping photos of where you go and where you look. They're constantly jotting down the details of your movements. When you go into your home, they wait outside, ready to start shadowing you again as soon as you step off your property. Every day, they report everything they've learned about you to a government database. Needless to say, most people would presumably feel incredibly violated by such a scenario, even though it's all taking place in that public space where we're told that we have no expectation of privacy. Technology is creating the largely invisible equivalent of that guy in the raincoat, ready to tail us all in perpetuity. If we don't control him, he will most assuredly control us. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com - - - -- Forwarded Message From: Gregory Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Gregory Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:42:03 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS Dave: For IP if you wish... http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=322152 Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS Decision allows use of vehicle tracking device without a warrant By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer First published: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 In a decision that could dramatically affect criminal investigations nationwide, a federal judge has ruled police didn't need a warrant when they attached a satellite tracking device to the underbelly of a car being driven by a suspected Hells Angels operative. [...snip...] All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2005, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y. -- End of Forwarded Message - You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net pgpapoSm29fll.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Re: the embedded item: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=322152 Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS Decision allows use of vehicle tracking device without a warrant By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer First published: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 In a decision that could dramatically affect criminal investigations nationwide, a federal judge has ruled police didn't need a warrant when they attached a satellite tracking device to the underbelly of a car being driven by a suspected Hells Angels operative. Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? By extension, is there a business opportunity for bug-sweeping? Either a storefront or a properly equipped pickup truck with bright signage. (oh, yeah... I'm sure *that* would go over well with the Powers That Be) -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFT SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
expectation of privacy
At 09:01 PM 1/12/05 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: It's time to blow the lid off this no expectation of privacy in public places argument that judges and law enforcement now spout out like demented parrots in so many situations. A court refused to hear the case of a man accused of owning unlicensed pharmaceuticals when a pig entered a locked loo. The loo was part of a gas station; the attendant called the pigs. A prostitute was in there too, with him, and the area rife with folks of that profession, FWIW, which is nothing. But the court held reduced expectation of privacy in a public loo. One imagines much fun with anonymous calls when state employees are in such places, but this does not temper our disgust, or desire for karma with extreme prejudice.
Re: [IP] No expectation of privacy in public? In a pig's eye! (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Re: the embedded item: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=322152 Ruling gives cops leeway with GPS Decision allows use of vehicle tracking device without a warrant By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer First published: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 In a decision that could dramatically affect criminal investigations nationwide, a federal judge has ruled police didn't need a warrant when they attached a satellite tracking device to the underbelly of a car being driven by a suspected Hells Angels operative. Just out of curiosity, if the man doesn't need a warrent to place a surveilance device, shouldn't it be within your rights to tamper with, disable or remove such a device if you discover one? By extension, is there a business opportunity for bug-sweeping? Either a storefront or a properly equipped pickup truck with bright signage. (oh, yeah... I'm sure *that* would go over well with the Powers That Be) -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFT SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Re: Expectation of privacy in public?
on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 07:16:03AM +0200, Anonymous ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there... In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers. quote Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told the Bay Guardian that they were well aware of the policy and approved it. There are no expectations of privacy in public, he said. Ballard asserted that the policy was constitutional and did not fall under any wiretapping laws. When asked if all of the vehicles that employ this surveillance policy post signs to inform passengers that their conversations are being recorded, he said, This policy does not require signs. /quote Frankly, if I'm sitting in the back of an empty bus, talking to the person next to me, it's my opinion that there certainly is a reasonable expection of privacy. Does anyone more qualified than I care to tell me why I'm right or wrong? Jeffrey Rosen's _The Unwanted Gaze: the destruction of privacy in America_ is a good general read on this topic, and is generally recommended. It doesn't cover the issue of privacy in public in depth, though the issue is really more one of moving anonymously (or at least largely unrecorded) through public spaces. Rosen does discuss privacy at home and at work, and in cyberspace. The index doesn't specifically list public spaces, though there's some discussion of anonymity. Brandeis and Warren wrote a law review article in 1890 in the _Harvard Law Review_. Rosen does touch on expectations of privacy in public spaces: In _The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Milan Kundera describes how the police destroyed an important figure of the Prague Spring by recording his conversations with a friend and then broadcasting them as a radio serial. The other interesting discussion is of the Olmstead case (the original wiretap case). I would raise objections on the basis of the Fourth and Forteenth Amendments. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
RE: Expectation of privacy in public?
Anonymous[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there... In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers. quote Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told the Bay Guardian that they were well aware of the policy and approved it. There are no expectations of privacy in public, he said. Ballard asserted that the policy was constitutional and did not fall under any wiretapping laws. When asked if all of the vehicles that employ this surveillance policy post signs to inform passengers that their conversations are being recorded, he said, This policy does not require signs. /quote Frankly, if I'm sitting in the back of an empty bus, talking to the person next to me, it's my opinion that there certainly is a reasonable expection of privacy. Does anyone more qualified than I care to tell me why I'm right or wrong? Legal or not, I'm also curious to see what the EFF has to say about this wonderful incarnation of Big Brother. http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/35/51/cult.html MUNI is breaking the law. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ Peter Trei --- Cal. Penal Code ' 631, 632 (Deering 1999): It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties. It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from such an interception. A first offense is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and imprisonment for no more than one year. Subsequent offenses carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and jail sentence of up to one year. Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone (including cordless or cellular telephone) or in person, that a person would reasonably expect to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications. Conversations occurring at any public gathering that one should expect to be overheard, including any legislative, judicial or executive proceeding open to the public, are not covered by the law. Anyone injured by a violation of the wiretapping laws can recover civil damages of $5,000 or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. Cal. Penal Code ' 637.2(a) (Deering 1999). An appellate court has ruled that using a hidden video camera violates the statute. California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (1989). --
Re: RE: Expectation of privacy in public?
On 24 Sep 2001, at 17:49, Robert wrote: Cal. Penal Code ' 631, 632 (Deering 1999): It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties. It is not a crime for an agency of another country to eavesdrop on you as long as they are physically located outside the U.S. Similarly, it is not illegal for a US agency to intercept messages in another country, as long as they do it from outside the that country. You're on crack. The anti-eavsdropping laws don't have exemptions for agents of foreign governments, the suggestion is absurd. This is how (if it really does exist) the Echelon network works. Agencies in Canada, England, Australia etc. intercept messages in the U.S. and then pass on the intelligence to their U.S. counterparts. This information sharing by-passes legal jurisdictional limits. Except that it doesn't. It's not a violation of US law for US agents to spy on people in Australia, but it's almost certainly a violation of Australian law. Similarly, it's probably not a violation of Australian law for Australian agents to eavsdrop on people in California, but it's clearly a violation of California law. George Robert Andrews Is your personal data exposed? http://www.PrivacyExposed.com
RE: Expectation of privacy in public?
Under the California statute, a conversation in which the parties have no expectation that the discussion would not be disclosed to others is not confidential. Cal. Penal Code. Sect.632(a). Confidentiality has been construed in California to mean a reasonable expectation that the content of the communication has been entrusted privately to the listener. Deteresa v. American Braodcasting Co. 121 F.3d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1997, cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1840 (1998). Oral Communication under Title I (of Title III or the ECPA) incorporates the Katz test. The Katz test is two-pronged: (1) the person challenging must exhibit an expectation of privacy [subjective] and (2) that person must also be justified in that expectation [objective]. If both prongs are not met, the conversation is not protected under the constitution against warrantless surveillance. Senate Report 1097: neither the speakers intention to talk in confidence nor the location of where the conversation happened controls the determination of whether or not he reasonably expected he could not or would not be overheard. The factors that might be considered in regard to the first prong are: precautions taken, content, purpose, etc. Therefore, words a person knowingly puts to the public, possibly even in your home, can be outside of the Fourth Amendment and Title III. However, it's a very contextual determination. Often, the courts use the rationale that because you have no reason to believe your conversation is not being overheard, you have no reason to believe you are not being recorded. See In re Johen Doe Trader No. One, 894 F.2d 240, 243 (7th Cir. 1990)(recording on floor of commodities exchange). They could also make the analogy to a visitor of a bugged house, such as United States v. Flemmi, 225 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2000). However, the mere fact that the conversation is on government premises does not affect an expectation of privacy. United States v. Jackson, 588 F.2d 1046, 1052 (5th Cir. 1979)and a bunch more after that. Blah, blah, more than you wanted to know. ~Aimee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trei, Peter Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 12:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Expectation of privacy in public? Anonymous[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there... In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers. quote Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told the Bay Guardian that they were well aware of the policy and approved it. There are no expectations of privacy in public, he said. Ballard asserted that the policy was constitutional and did not fall under any wiretapping laws. When asked if all of the vehicles that employ this surveillance policy post signs to inform passengers that their conversations are being recorded, he said, This policy does not require signs. /quote Frankly, if I'm sitting in the back of an empty bus, talking to the person next to me, it's my opinion that there certainly is a reasonable expection of privacy. Does anyone more qualified than I care to tell me why I'm right or wrong? Legal or not, I'm also curious to see what the EFF has to say about this wonderful incarnation of Big Brother. http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/35/51/cult.html MUNI is breaking the law. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ Peter Trei ---
Expectation of privacy in public?
For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there... In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers. quote Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told the Bay Guardian that they were well aware of the policy and approved it. There are no expectations of privacy in public, he said. Ballard asserted that the policy was constitutional and did not fall under any wiretapping laws. When asked if all of the vehicles that employ this surveillance policy post signs to inform passengers that their conversations are being recorded, he said, This policy does not require signs. /quote Frankly, if I'm sitting in the back of an empty bus, talking to the person next to me, it's my opinion that there certainly is a reasonable expection of privacy. Does anyone more qualified than I care to tell me why I'm right or wrong? Legal or not, I'm also curious to see what the EFF has to say about this wonderful incarnation of Big Brother. http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/35/51/cult.html
