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.
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.
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.
This is a non-issue. The summary isn't very good. The premise is if you butt dial someone, the conversation now includes the person on the other end.
An example, you are cheating on your wife. You butt dial her while talking about cheating on her with a friend. She listens in and gets upset with you. You can't sue your wife for recording the conversation and using it in divorce court.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
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