Slashdot Mirror
US Court: 'Pocket-Dialed' Calls Are Not Private
itwbennett writes: In a case of a pocket-dialed call, a conscientious secretary, and sensitive personnel issues, a federal appeals court in Ohio has ruled pocket-dialers shouldn't have any expectation of privacy. 'Under the plain-view doctrine, if a homeowner neglects to cover a window with drapes, he would lose his reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to a viewer looking into the window from outside of his property,' the court said. The same applies to pocket-dialed calls, according to the court. If a person doesn't take reasonable steps to keep their call private, their communications are not protected by the Wiretap Act.
Sorry, I must have missed that issue. What's "pocket dialed"?
These calls had a very apt descriptive term. Now they are calling pocket dialed calls? Is pocket the new euphemism for butt?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is really a problem when your butt has a bigger social life than yours.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
What happened to the woman CEO of the airport? Looks like this guy was conspiring to replace her and discriminate against her because she was a woman. What happened to that more interesting thread?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Here's a notice for people who talk on their phones like it were a slice of pizza, unfortunately for all of us your conversation isn't private.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
NSA uses malware to dial your phone for you, records ambient conversations, and it's not against the wiretapping laws because "you" didn't make an effort to keep "your" conversation private.
How can I not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for something that it literally happening in my pants?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
In some places you need permission of both parties to record a conversation. If a similar ruling was made in say Washington, then someone could "accidentally" call their friend and they could listen into a conversation that was intended to be private. Proving that the dialing was not an accident could be difficult.
I was on a sales incentive trip in maui w/my wife who at time worked for a well-known goliath software company (the one w/the playboy billionaire founder as opposed to w/monopolist-turned-philanthropist one). I'd used her phone earlier in day to call my (then) boss about something & later that evening a bunch of us piled in a rental car for a dinner that involved imbibing a beverage or two (dozen). next week I get home, go back to work & he (boss) had the widest grin I'd ever seen, pulled me into a conference room, said "you're lucky I like you & you're good at your job!" & proceeded to play a 10+ min voicemail of a bunch of drunken people talking about what drugs they'd done in their life, which ones they liked/didn't, which ones they still do, which ones they wouldn't even if they were legal, etc. I've since left but we're still good friends... :D
weirdly that was the night of 9/10/01 which w/the time difference was probably only a couple hrs before they left for the airports...
This is not about a private call. The call remained private the whole time. Huff called Spaw directly. He didn't know he called her, but he did. No one had wire tapped the call (at least no one more than usual *cough* NSA *cough*). That call remained private until Spaw divulged information obtained from the call. I think she did not have a legal responsibility to keep the information private, so she can share it at will.
What should be discussed here is whether the CONVERSATION overheard in the background should be private, since Spaw understood she was hearing privileged information during an accidental call. Personally, I think it shouldn't be. If you're so clueless that you butt-dial me and I hear something you're saying (whether I share that info or not), that's your problem, not mine.
Again, the call remained private between the caller and receiver, what's really being argued is if the background conversation overheard during the call should be private. My answer: NO.
Could our overseers use this? If malware could activate the phone mic and wait for some juicy gossip in the background, a real call could be triggered to say a targets voice mail and allowed to record. Then that call could be used without a warrant? Course they'd have to keep quiet bout the malware but that sounds like biz as usual anyway. Interesting.
Btw, "pocket dial" is the PC of "butt dial".
Close the drapes. Because it's perfectly legal for that pervert across the street to use binoculars. He just can't trespass. But cops can, correct? wtf I can't keep up with all this.
If I smoke weed (or don't & they just claim they smell it) cops can break down my door.
If they view what they think might be something illegal though your windows, they can break down my door.
If someone on my open wifi does something that might be considered illegal, they can break down my door.
So basically I can just assume that cops can break down my door at any time.
Has it really ever been different?
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
Where is your iPhone God now?
Is anything protected by the Wiretap Act anymore?
Once again, the headline and summary are misleading. The judgement is not that pocket-dialed calls have no expectation of privacy at all, but rather that if you pocket-dial someone who goes on to overhear you talking talking as a result of the call then it's your fault and not that of the person you called, and thus you have no cause to accuse the person you called of "wiretapping". This is not a case of a judge declaring actual wiretapping to be OK.
Here's the very first paragraph of the fine article:
A federal appeals court in Ohio has ruled that a person who accidentally “pocket dials” someone shouldn’t expect any overheard conversation to be considered private.
What happens if someone hacks into your home automation system, remotely opens the curtains and takes a picture of the inside of your house?
Does this mean that we can expect privacy on non-pocket dialed calls? NSA, are you listening?
"If a thief walks in your unlocked door, don't call us." Ah, but wait, it's not about the act, is it?, It's a matter of who is doing it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I need an app that will broadcast this message unless I override it: "This phone call is confidential and intended solely for the use of someone else. If you do not hear "Hey Frank, Jennifer, Oscar, Susan, or some other name.' you have received this phone call in error please hang-up. If you hear your name, you should still hang up. This phone call contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named, even if you hear me ordering burgers at the McDonald's drive through. Copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited."
I wonder if this just set a new legal precedent that can be used by the defense the next time a security researcher finds her/him-self on the wrong side of a legal team for exploring a service that was open to the web. As according to this ruling if you leave it open, it's your fault if someone else gets access to it. So, basic example, you should have "no expectation of privacy" if you leave directory browsing turned on as per the judges reasoning/analogy, it's the exact same thing as leaving your blinds open and a passer by gets a peek.
If we attribute heart disease and obesity to red meat; cows are killing us in great numbers!
In the Stasi's wildest fantasies, they'd never imagine that people would be stupid enough to carry around a sophisticated electronic digital listening device with recording capability.
And pay $600 for the privilege.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Apparently i am so far gone that I can no longer grasp the definition of privacy. Privacy seems to have strange new meanings blooming like crab grass in my lawn. You know, it's like my neighbor who gets drunk and goes into a blind rage, removes her clothing and runs about my block cursing god and her husband and then complains that i filmed the entire episode and sent it to the net for all to see. And she was really offended when i filmed her kissing the strange guy at her back door just after her husband left for work. And the husband didn't like it when i recorded him climbing on stage to grope the exotic dancers at the local strip club. And the minister seated next to him objected to it being put on the web as he apparently felt that jerking off in a strip club was a private action.
If unsecured communication is an invitation to eavesdrop, then an unlocked door is an invitation to steal, and should be just as legal.
Maybe the next guy should use copyright law to prohibit any retransmission of the signal.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
.... when the issue of openly recording people who are in a public place is still legally questionable?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Wasn't there a case a while back where a government agency accidentally faxed documents confirming warrant-less wiretapping to a lawyer. After doing so the agency in question demanded all copies of the documents, threatened those who received them with prosecution if they discussed the documents and in a later court case even successfully argued that those documents be excluded from court proceedings because they were accidentally sent. This is disturbing trend in our government that the rights of the citizens are interpreted as narrowly as possible while the their own privileges are given as wide a latitude as possible.
The original standard was that if an average human, unaided, is not prevented from seeing stuff, because they are expected to be there and no special tools are required and your showing the world, there is no expectation of privacy. THIS doesn't even come close to meeting that standard. The ruling essentially says, that since the unaided human test exists, and there is no right to privacy in that case, then ANY thing can be said to have no right to privacy. Since a special tool is required and intent to use that tool is required, it is pretty obvious that the government is doing something specifically more than being an unaided human being. And therefor to behave differently than that standard, should require a warrant.
"If a person doesn't take reasonable steps to keep their call private, their communications are not protected by the Wiretap Act." Are the calls not all recorded by default? There's already no privacy if that's the case. But then, the next step would be - how do they know that the call was pocket-dialed without listening to it first?
Streamed live from his butt to her house....
To me it sounds like an euphemism for "parallel construction".
Did you know 911 was the most commonly butt-dialed number?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Who is to say if a call was really pocket-dialed, or the call was triggered by a third party on a hacked phone....
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hi Sexconker, glad you found the Post Anonymously box this time.
I have never had my phone make an unintentional call as a result of putting the phone in my pocket or sitting on it. Occasionally my phone (Note 3) will call someone with absolutely no input from me when I am viewing their text message history. I do not have "OK Google" or Voicedialing enabled. It usually happens when I put the phone down on a table or just changing the orientation of the phone. I will see the phone flash and then all of a sudden it is dialing whoever's text message history I was viewing. Very annoying and definitely not something that is "my fault" as the judge says. What"precautions" would he have me take? Rewrite the OS?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
"If a person doesn't take reasonable steps to keep their call private, their communications are not protected by the Wiretap Act."
I'm so glad this piece of legislation is being interpreted as needed for the case. You can still be arrested for recording a police officer though - I don't see them walking around with drapes in front of their faces.
So what about land lines then? If I bump the speed dial button, how does the court figure I waive all my rights to it?
Fuck the court. Encrypt EVERYTHING, but of course another court will rule that you can't do that.
"if a homeowner neglects to cover a window with drapes, he would lose his reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to a viewer looking into the window from outside of his property,"
That's OK.
A viewer looking into my window from outside my property loses his reasonable expectation of eyesight while I am conducting laser experiments.
I'll bet that "reasonable steps to keep their call private" must include:
- using a BlackPhone;
- only making calls from an underground cavern, lined with both cement and a Faraday cage;
- only calling people you are related to, employed by, or have regular contact with a minimum of once per day;
- you keep a bag over your head the whole time;
- any cameras have been disabled with a crowbar;
- you wear gloves;
- you walk around backwards, and speak the Uzbek language.
Then they may consider this to be "reasonable steps to keep their call private". Unless they get a FISA warrant. Or consider you a terr'ist. Or you have hair, pants, plants, a pet, or you like chocolate. Other conditions may also warrant your inclusion, at their discretion. No notice will be given to anyone, under any conditions. YMMV!
Butt dialing happens, by definition, by mistake and without your knowledge. When you close your drapes, they don't randomly open by mistake and without your knowledge. This argument by the court is asinine, and the comparison completely specious.
So if you fail to secure your phone, any conversations that are eavesdropped on due to a butt-dial are fair game.
But if you fail to secure your web server and someone gets in, you get off scot-free and the intruder* is the one who takes the heat.
Yeah, that makes total sense.
*Who isn't really an intruder, you were just too stupid to change your locks after kicking out your crazy ex, who then proceeded to let everyone and their dog inside. How was I to know your crazy ex did not have authorization to let me in?
Pocket dials consume enormous amounts of time in emergency comm centers, at last count here they are 1/5 of our calls daily from an average of 1100 calls a day. Each one must be called back and a CAD call must be created for each and every one, so if you ever wonder why no one is answering your call there is part of the answer. We have arrested burglars once that pocket dialed while breaking into a business, would of loved to see the surprise on their face.