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.
This is really a problem when your butt has a bigger social life than yours.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
I've found this enlightening on the subject.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
A.K.A. Butt dialing. More common with non-smart, non-flip phones, where buttons are accidentally pressed to dial a contact while the phone is stored away in a pocket.
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"
That depends on the size of the butt and its shape change potential during sitting.
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.
Plus, seriously, who is idiotic enough to keep their phone in their rear pants pockets anyway? Some of us sit down once in a while...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
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.
Confusing butt-dialed with booty call would be like confusing ladies' man with ladyboy.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
ah so a genuine booty call?
I'm sorry. I have a bonnet full of beans this morning because I have a stomach ache.
I had a doctors appointment this morning, and he did things to me that customarily involve at least dinner and a movie under normal circumstances, so I, too, feel the need to be technically correct (the best kind of correct!)
The idiom you're looking for is "bees in your bonnet" not "beans." The reference is to having a head full of ideas, though I believe you are using the more modern usage relating to irritation (which I believe comes from a time when women might wear floral arrangements in their headgear, which quite probably would attract pollinating insects. Having a bee in your bonnet would be quite distressing if it were literal. I do not, however, have any sourcing for this, it is merely an inference on my part).
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Is anything protected by the Wiretap Act anymore?
Yes, the privacy of the police.
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 you call someone, even inadvertently, you have no expectation of privacy.
Then if you leave your doors unlocked, you have no expectation of ownership
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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!”
It must happen to people a lot
In New York City in 2012, roughly 40% of 911 calls were apparent butt dials. Their category (calls less than 20 seconds long, no response from the caller) probably includes some other inadvertent calls as well, but the majority are probably phone-in-pocket situations.
Just for NYC, that's more than 10 thousand calls per day, and about 4 million 911 calls per year.
Butts.
~Idarubicin
Confusing butt-dialed with booty call would be like confusing ladies' man with ladyboy.
While in college, a friend of mine had rounded up a group of about a dozen or so guys to go to the local strip joint for "playgirl" night.
They were about to head out when someone happened to point out that it was "playgirl" night not "playboy" night. I think it would
have been more fun if they would have just kept quiet and let them go ahead and go.
These calls had a very apt descriptive term. Now they are calling pocket dialed calls? Is pocket the new euphemism for butt?
Well, probably because butt dialed doesn't make much sense when 11% of people who keep their phone in their pocket keep it in one of their back pockets. Then there are all the people who wear their phone on a holster.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Wallet in one back pocket, phone in the other. They go in when I stand up, and move to a front pocket or the car door/dash/whatever when I sit. Or get tossed in my purse if I'm sitting down at a restaurant/movies/something-else. I don't know why that's a difficult concept, I grew up around men who always carried a wallet in their back pocket but with sciatica in the family hated sitting on them; the phone is no different.