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.
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.
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.
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?