Slashdot Mirror
Interesting Privacy Decision in New Hampshire
TCPALaw writes "A huge decision
in privacy law was handed down today by the NH Supreme Court in the Amy Boyer case. Amy was stalked and killed by a man who got her personal
information, including SSN, from an on-line information broker. Privacy groups such as EPIC have argued that access to sensitive personal information should carry with it liability for misuse, and can constitute a tort. The NH Supreme Court agreed.
Now perhaps you can sue the spyware companies."
It however does not cost you anything to put your phone number under a different name. I could put my name under John Smith. Any phone calls that I receive for John Smith can easily be ignored then and it hasn't cost me a cent.
It covers the liability of someone who obtained information using a wrong pretext (a lie), and then reselling that information. It has absolutely nothing to do with the publication of information obtained publically, but instead hinges on someone making private information public by using a lie to obtain said information.
Actually, the court ruled in a similar matter as part of this case. They ruled that information that can readily be found out by observation of public actions is not covered under privacy laws. The specific example in this case was the victim's work address; the Court ruled that since somebody could easily and legally watch you commute from home to work, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your work address. The same thing is undoubtedly true of your home address, license plate number, and any number of similar facets of your life.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
often, similar information can be pulled just as easily off of popular search engines, if the person is active online. are their search and archiving techniques the next to be contested?
The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
Interesting way to slashdot the Amy Boyer site. This can probably handle the load.
The privileged white male population of slashdot really has no idea how prevalent stalking behaviour is or how threatening certain behaviour can be. Perhaps because half the people here are maladjusted near-stalkers themselves (and I'm not flaming - I've done things in the past where I meant well and thought I was merely being cute, but it wouldn't be perceived that way at all by many reasonable people - I was merely fortunate in retrospect that the people in question were forgiving and open-minded).
It's an area where people need a LOT of education. All the legal precedent in the world is nothing compared to the potential benefit of simply teaching people how to put themselves in someone else's shoes.
The murder and rape cases are awful, but few and far between. It's the little tiny near-threats every day that really diminish us as a society. It galls me, because I now see any case where someone's liberty is reduced by quasi-fear and chill as a very serious matter (and yes, I'm aware of the irony given that this case too will be abused against people who did nothing wrong - but for every Type I error there's a Type II error, and there's nothing you can do to change that).
If I inadvertantly gave the stalker directions to this person's house, am I liable?
Actully they addressed this in the ruling. The judges found that things such as Work and Home address are not considered private. As such, there is no liabity for giving out or selling this information.
What they did find to be a problem was calling a person, and using a false pretext (a lie) to get or confirm thier work address. Also, they found that obtaining a persons SSN from a credit report header, then selling it was a violation of privacy, and is therefore cause to bring a civil suit against the information broker.
If you haven't yet, I suggest reading the decision, its a bit heavy, but is very well thought out.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
The Amy Boyer site is reachable again and seems to be able to handle the load.
I would just like to thank the family for hosting the mirror of the Liam Youens stalker site. It must have taken incredible fortitude for them to do that, but I think it's worth it, because I really believe it's possible to learn something from the site. If I had seen this before the murder, I would have pegged this guy as a pathetic poser (in fact, I'm glad I didn't see it then, because I wouldn't have done one single thing that could have changed anything, and I'd feel like shit now). It's a very upsetting read, but it may be worthwhile to some people here.
At the same time, you don't want everyone assuming their slightly weird friends are all murderers-to-be. Shows how thin the line can be I suppose. But even just talking to someone can defuse almost any situation, if it's done in time.
This at the EPIC site is also good.
The legal story here is about lawyers, as always. The real issue is whether you can change people in society.
"there's no reason to artificially reserve the misappropriation of a name or likeness to a person's reputation or prestige, i.e., to celebrities"
This has nothing to do with celebrity. If I pretend to be you on eBay, say, and sell bad goods, I've misappropriated your reputation. If I apply for a credit card, pretending to be you, I've missappropriated your credit record, which is commercial reputation. What's the court ruled that is that the name itself is not private.
"Jeez, anytime you make a call under a false pretext you're subject to a deceptive practices act!?"
Again, no, only if you do it for a commercial purpose. In other words, yes, you are liable if someone pays you to make a crank call. Or if you own a video store, calling other video stores pretending to be a customer so you can figure out what titles they are already out of so you can alter your pricing accordingly.
In the UK we have the Data Protection Act 1998. Basically it stipulates that if you want to hold personal data on someone you must by law be on the register of data controllers, see here. It also stipulates you can only hold someones personal information so long as you have a bona fide reason for having that information (e.g. business relationship etc). If you are holding or using personal data without authority you are committing a criminal act and the company's data controller can be held personally liable to criminal action. It is also required that the data controllers tell the registrar what they do with personal data and they are then restricted to doing only what they said they would do. Failure to comply can lead to big fines and payment of compensation to the victim.
I personally have used the act many times to look at my data, all I do is pay £10 for costs and the company/organisation has to give me everything they have on me, including CCTV footage they may have of me (suitably modified so as to obscure the identifying features of other people). If I find something amiss I can complain to the Information Commisioner who has the legal powers to put it right and award me compensation. It would seem this sort of act would prevent a case like this, by effectively shutting down information brokers. Does no such similar act exist in New Hampshire or other states?
Hey... Nice to meet someone from NH!
I actually knew Amy... Not well mind you, but I did know her years ago.
Things ARE run a little differently up here.. and it's a breath of fresh air. I wouldn't have it any other way. No helmets for Motorcycles if you don't want to, no seat belt laws if your over 18, No income tax.
Linuxrunner
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?