Defining the Expectation of Privacy (RE: Funny)
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
Are we reasonable people?
I, like wombat, live in Manhattan. And I too, am more than a little worried about real outcome(s) of implementing a 'congestion pricing' system in NYC with respect to privacy and our rights to be 'secure in our homes'.
Understand that, in PRACTICE, the fourth amendment and the expectation of privacy are legally tested using the assumption of reasonableness - meaning that the private space is defined based on prevailing understanding (read 'common sense') of what is / is not private space.
For example, can one reasonably assume that while at a Mets game (public space) one will not be seen, and that one's uncovered face will not be photographed by other fans, sports photographers, news crews? No, it is not reasonable to assume this, and the Major League Baseball can broadcast your face on TV or on the JumboTron without permission. However, aiming a camera up your skirt and broadcasting your ass for all to see would is NOT permissible precisely 'cause it's private space and would fail test of reasonableness.
Context informs reasonableness (and yes, my example does NOT directly address authority of the government). The thing to remember is that reasonableness is a subjective standard. If the state (or by proxy corporations!) move the boundaries of what constitutes a reasonable understanding of privacy (congestion pricing = we told you we'd be watching you!) then these boundaries become legal when no one objects. And this test also applies to all automated record keeping (cell phone locaation, RFID!) and remote sensing technologies (thermal imaging systems!).
I know that I don't want my movements / associations recorded at will by the government. I assume that most you share a similar and reasonable position. Am I wrong?
Google up on 'expectation of privacy', 'reasonable person test' and 'plain view doctrine' for more. Hell, perhaps then read / re-read the fourth amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Are we reasonable people?
I, like wombat, live in Manhattan. And I too, am more than a little worried about real outcome(s) of implementing a 'congestion pricing' system in NYC with respect to privacy and our rights to be 'secure in our homes'.
Understand that, in PRACTICE, the fourth amendment and the expectation of privacy are legally tested using the assumption of reasonableness - meaning that the private space is defined based on prevailing understanding (read 'common sense') of what is / is not private space.
For example, can one reasonably assume that while at a Mets game (public space) one will not be seen, and that one's uncovered face will not be photographed by other fans, sports photographers, news crews? No, it is not reasonable to assume this, and the Major League Baseball can broadcast your face on TV or on the JumboTron without permission. However, aiming a camera up your skirt and broadcasting your ass for all to see would is NOT permissible precisely 'cause it's private space and would fail test of reasonableness.
Context informs reasonableness (and yes, my example does NOT directly address authority of the government). The thing to remember is that reasonableness is a subjective standard. If the state (or by proxy corporations!) move the boundaries of what constitutes a reasonable understanding of privacy (congestion pricing = we told you we'd be watching you!) then these boundaries become legal when no one objects. And this test also applies to all automated record keeping (cell phone locaation, RFID!) and remote sensing technologies (thermal imaging systems!).
I know that I don't want my movements / associations recorded at will by the government. I assume that most you share a similar and reasonable position. Am I wrong?
Google up on 'expectation of privacy', 'reasonable person test' and 'plain view doctrine' for more. Hell, perhaps then read / re-read the fourth amendment.
Mr. Green.