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"
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.
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
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?
"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 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.
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
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'
"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
The term "unaided" was eliminated from almost all notions of plain sense many many years ago. For example, police can use drug dogs to aid their "plain smell" case against someone transporting drugs in their car. Officers can also use laser microphones to listen to conversations behind closed glass, because the glass is vibrating and causing the sound to emanate into the "public space," even though a special tool is required to make it audible.
Neither of these are "plain, unaided senses," but the courts have nixed the "unaided" bit over the years in the name of protecting us from ourselves.
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 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.
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.