Privacy is long gone for everyone other than those who have no connection to the social, financial or online world. It's been gone for a long time.
You can either sacrifice some or all of your privacy or go live alone on a deserted island (probably non-existent) or in an equally inhospitable place.
Just a side comment. A consulting client, an accounting firm, asked about using encryption for emails etc... so I explained the steps necessary to generate a key pair, get the public key signed by a CA while getting their clients to do the same thing. This is BEFORE doing anything else. The reply? "Forget it!"
Another client, a medical clinic uses an insurance clearing house to process claims. The clearinghouse uses an ssl site for the clinic to upload their data. Unfortunately while the site uses ssl the actual data is sent using ftp and the data is in plaintext!
It gives me such a warm fuzzy feeling to know that programmers can be tech savvy enough to construct an ssl site but not competent enough to figure out how to transfer files over the ssl connection.
I am unfortunately culpable because I'd rather keep my clients rather than stand on principle. Even after I brought the situation to the clinic's attention the situation hasn't changed.
Just more silliness from the idiot class that has the reins of power.
They pass unconstitutional laws then they have to pass more laws to fix the unintended consequences of their stupidity.
The country needs a SCOTUS with the ability and balls to challenge this crap without first having to wait for a case to be fought all the way up the judicial process. It also needs the ability to fine legislators who pass such unconstitutional drivel. But then that presupposes that the inhabitants of those 9 chairs have good character.
I think it's because the average \.er is a good deal more intelligent than the general population. This would be especially true for math.
Additionally, the general population is becoming dumber and dumber(IMHO)so this may be a good thing in disguise. It may weed out the dumb as well as the drunk. (Yes, I know I have a bad attitude but we,re all friends. Right?)
Besides, the meaning of life, the universe and everything is 42. (or something like that.
I agree. But because people have a right doesn't mean they should. I'm ambivalent about this thing because if somebody needs restraining perhaps they need another hobby.
Fortunately I have learned the hard way that self restraint is very necessary. It's a sign of the times that people need stuff like this or the other stuff that censors the free exchange of information.
As for free speech, it is unfortunate that the people who actually have something valuable to say restrain themselves to much; while those who are simply full of $#!+ have no restraint at all.
In terms of sheer numbers the mass of American citizens far overwhelms the military of the U.S.
While it is true that the weapons of the U.S. Military could kill many citizens they could never win over their hearts and minds. The whole of the population could be destroyed but then what would be left for tyranny to rule?
Virtually ALL revolutions are fomented by a small group of zealots with neutral support of the populace. Even the revolutionary war wasn't won in the conventional sense but was a guerrilla war which so increased the costs to England such that England simply quit.
So it was in Vietnam and so it will be in Iraq.
No matter how WMD's are applied to the rebels they will never be conquered. They can only be killed and be replaced by new insurgents. This was evident in the writings of the framers of the constitution then which is the whole purpose of the Second Amendment. While the Military has discipline, organization and far superior weapons they will never match the orneriness of the determined heart of a patriot defending his honor, his home and his way of life.
I would strongly disagree with that. The current military is stretched very thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government would have no chance against a determined American populace. The key word is "determined".
However, the second amendment does not confer any new right upon the people, it merely says that the right we already had "shall not be infringed." This is the question the SCOTUS did not address.
My interpretation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means that there shall be no laws which infringe or hinder a person's right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment makes no mention of what type of arms nor does it say anything about reasonable restrictions.
The writings of the framers said quite a lot about the type of arms in sum that anything the military had the people could also have. In fact the Miller Decision made that same point in that a sawed off shotgun was in fact a military weapon and as such should be legal for any person to possess.
Machine guns are legal to possess also if you pay the transfer tax.
The purpose of the second amendment was to insure that every person be able to have the means to repel a hostile government. If the government should start attacking people to such an extent that people in general became outraged then there would be revolution and what's more the people in government know this fact and the fact that they would lose. This is why they seek to disarm the people.
An armed person is a citizen. an unarmed person is a subject.
Can you be more specific about exactly where in Article 2 it states that the executive shall have the power to disregard the constitution or any provision of the Bill of Rights? I have heard this argument before and at least in my copy of the constitution it says nothing of the sort. It DOES say in Article 2, Section1, Clause 8:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
But then I am not a politician, attorney, judge or a member of any presidential administration (past or present) so I don't have the benefit of divine inspiration and am simply relying on my own reading skills and common sense.
AWW... Now you've gone and fucked up his whole argument without letting him in on the joke. OTOH he probably wouldn't get it even if you explained it to him.
I've had guns in my dwellings for over 40 years. I don't care what your studies and statistics show because of one simple fact. If somebody breaks into my home while I am there he will be shot. Not only will I shoot them, I will shoot them as many times as it takes to render them no longer a threat. This is how law enforcement people are trained and it is a sensible response.
An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a victim.
If you are so sure a gun in your house is unwise I invite you to post a sign in your yard that says "Gun Free Zone."
You may now continue with your suicidal lifestyle.
I would have walked away and not taken their money. Even though they knew their security was wide open they could have sued me when somebody penetrated their (non)security.
The cost of defending against such a baseless lawsuit would be many times that check and you could still lose given the tech savvy or the average juror or judge.
Even though it is often painful and time consuming to explain security to my clients, I have often refused to allow weak security on the systems I manage.
Do you even know what the word "insurgent" means? An insurgent is a rebel. A native Iraqi who's defending his country against a foreign invader (US) and rebelling against a puppet government.
If an insurgent came here he would be a foreign enemy but by no stretch of the imagination could he be an insurgent in our country.
Try to think critically and see past the propaganda and the bullshit instead of just parroting phrases that you really can't be bothered to understand.
An Anarcho-Capitalist is as I understand it to be without referring to online definitions, a person who believes that laws are inherently evil and doesn't feel compelled to obey them unless it is to his advantage to do so.
A capitalist is one who believes that he has a right to his own property and the property he has purchased from a willing seller with no force or coercion involved. He believes he has an absolute right to sell that property to whoever he chooses at a price they both agree on. Again without force or coercion. He also owns himself and the things he has produced by his own efforts. He has to right to sell himself into servitude for whatever price and terms he and a willing buyer can agree on. This includes any arrangement from a few hours per day to total slavery. This goes along with the Anarchist part.
In tune with both the anarchist and the capitalist parts a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller is a private matter and cannot be taxed, prohibited or otherwise interfered with by others. If you don't like me buying drugs then you are welcome to go away and bother somebody else. My body and what I do with it are my business so go away. Don't give me any silly crap about your looking out for me, you're not, you're just an asshole do-gooder and worthy of extermination IMHO.
Is that your concept of Anarcho-Capitalist?
Feel free to flame me, I need a chuckle now and then.
Back on topic, IP in the digital age is rapidly becoming irrelevant because anything which can be created and stored in digital form can be copied. Anything which is meant to be accessible to anyone else, especially to the public is ipso-facto public domain because even copy protected DVD's which can be viewed can be copied simply by copying the decoded image, audio, etc... There was a public debacle around the time the internet was beginning to be used by the public in which copy protection of diskettes was defeated rather easily by various means. You'd think they'd learn but they never do.
Far better methods are available for protecting IP such as the "activation" required by Microsoft products and various install codes made necessary by shareware creators.
No IP laws are really necessary to protect these products and the code keys are much more effective anyway.
Has anyone been to TPB lately? I have.
Most Anarcho/Capitalists simply see no need for IP laws or any other laws for that matter. But that's a discussion best conducted elsewhere by people who are intellectually open minded about such things and are more in tune with reality than most.
Back on topic, IP laws just don't work well across national boundaries and usually don't work at all. (See reference to TPB above.)
How effective do you think complaining to a Chinese LEO would be after a PC trojan stole all your personal info and emailed it to an ip address in China?
To protect an E-Book with some sort of cryptography I'm sure is possible, ask a cryptography expert, but then copying the decrypted version would be simple so why make the effort?
By now the reader should be getting the idea.
As for the moral aspect, try to understand why some things can be produced and sold and others are free such as air and water. The reason is that some things are difficult to reproduce while others are so easily obtained by anyone that there is no point in trying. Of course conditions are not the same everywhere. There are places where air and water could be sold for very high prices.
However, if anything in digital form can be copied at essentially no cost is it immoral to do so? Because water is easily found is drinking it immoral? Is breathing immoral?
I'm sure some will consider their works to be property and it is as long as it is under your control. The second you post it on the internet in digital form it becomes public domain. Just because a law may say it's IP doesn't alter reality. However when enforcement of a law becomes impossible it ceases to be a law.
Yeah, I know. Reality bites.
And before you say something like "Water costs money. Just look at my water bill." I maintain that you aren't paying for the water you're paying for its purification and delivery to your tap. The same goes for bottled water, which I also pay for. You could very easily collect rain water and pump that to your system as many people do. My grandparents did just that.
All that being said, if you feel morally bound to pay for something which is "free", I am perfectly OK with you doing so. I often "pay" for freeware because it's so valuable to me that I wish the maker to be compensated, even if he did it for fun. I also code for hire and I consider what I write to be the property of the buyer. But that doesn't stop me from reusing code. This is because I sell solutions for problems, NOT software. If somebody reuses my code I consider it a complement that somebody thinks my work is good enough to copy. However trying to track down this person for prosecution would be silly IMHO. I am hopefully too busy coding for someone else in order to get paid for that. The only thing I have to sell aside from the objects which I posses because nobody considers them worth the effort to steal given that I am fully capable of preventing the theft by a number of ways which include homicide, are the products of my mind and other physical effort
Um... Sorry to take so long in replying to this. I tend to be somewhat touchy when posters attack me personally. Have you an actual argument or just more Insults?
What every one seems to have missed is that accidents happen for a wide variety of reasons. In order to have no risk of meeting somebody who is nondistracted we would need to put the driver in an isolation box such that he can only see what he needs to see in order to operate the vehicle properly. This would be intolerable.
Statistically some minor distractions are of little consequence. Requiring hands free operation is an acceptable infringement of liberty for most people but banning cell phone use by drivers is not. This same logic can be applied to the other nondriving activities to one extent or the other but banning those activities is unwarranted because we all do things which are risky to a level that varies with the individual.
While you may consider cell phone use to be too distracting others do not. But then they may feel that some of YOUR activities are to risky also.
We all accept the risk of driving with the knowledge that other drivers may be driving while distracted but we allow them the freedom to do this while accepting the risk because we need to get places ourselves and be unmolested by some do-gooder who feels he can restrict our freedoms "because it's good for us."
To live a life without risk is not living at all and is impossible anyway. We all take risks and we all have accidents and get injured and we all eventually die.
C'est la vie.
I take it as a high honor to be called a Fucking twit by Anonymous Coward who is just an ordinary twit.
Twits are in general quite enjoyable to fuck. They squeal real good.
Yeah! Then we could even get kids to report their parents for doing stupid things. What a great society that would be. With neighbors peeking at you through the mini-blinds and reporting you for putting your trash out to early.
Even so there are levels of risk that are acceptable. Life is risky but we take the risk of taking a shower knowing that we may slip and fall and become injured or die as a result. We drive because going somewhere is worth the risk of having an accident. We listen to books on tape or the radio because the risk of being to distracted is better than being bored. We talk on the cell phone because the communication is worth the risk. These risks are manageable but a life without risk is not worth living. Get over it already.
OH, and we eat food at the risk of getting food poisoning because it is better than dying of starvation. However if you don't want to risk it perhaps the world is better off without another idiot.
Like a search for drugs, the police need permission to search for untaxed fuel don't they? So what happens if you refuse to allow them to dip your tank?
"Filming police officer not invasion of privacy
* The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Washington's Privacy Act does not prohibit filming a police officer, allowing a civil rights lawsuit against the officer to advance."
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/1105johnso.html
--- End Paste ---
Though it doesn't directly apply to PA. it sets a strong precedent which can be cited by someone arrested in other locations.
The Police in the performance of their official duties have no expectation of privacy and therefore this law does not apply.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought they meant hard as in hard to get.
Privacy is long gone for everyone other than those who have no connection to the social, financial or online world. It's been gone for a long time.
You can either sacrifice some or all of your privacy or go live alone on a deserted island (probably non-existent) or in an equally inhospitable place.
Just a side comment. A consulting client, an accounting firm, asked about using encryption for emails etc... so I explained the steps necessary to generate a key pair, get the public key signed by a CA while getting their clients to do the same thing. This is BEFORE doing anything else. The reply? "Forget it!"
Another client, a medical clinic uses an insurance clearing house to process claims. The clearinghouse uses an ssl site for the clinic to upload their data. Unfortunately while the site uses ssl the actual data is sent using ftp and the data is in plaintext!
It gives me such a warm fuzzy feeling to know that programmers can be tech savvy enough to construct an ssl site but not competent enough to figure out how to transfer files over the ssl connection.
I am unfortunately culpable because I'd rather keep my clients rather than stand on principle. Even after I brought the situation to the clinic's attention the situation hasn't changed.
Just more silliness from the idiot class that has the reins of power.
They pass unconstitutional laws then they have to pass more laws to fix the unintended consequences of their stupidity.
The country needs a SCOTUS with the ability and balls to challenge this crap without first having to wait for a case to be fought all the way up the judicial process. It also needs the ability to fine legislators who pass such unconstitutional drivel. But then that presupposes that the inhabitants of those 9 chairs have good character.
The country also needs free ice cream.
I think it's because the average \.er is a good deal more intelligent than the general population. This would be especially true for math.
Additionally, the general population is becoming dumber and dumber(IMHO)so this may be a good thing in disguise. It may weed out the dumb as well as the drunk. (Yes, I know I have a bad attitude but we,re all friends. Right?)
Besides, the meaning of life, the universe and everything is 42. (or something like that.
> I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I'm thinking that verbs should be destroying clever word playing. (Sorry. It's the best I can do at 9:25 GMT.)
I agree. But because people have a right doesn't mean they should. I'm ambivalent about this thing because if somebody needs restraining perhaps they need another hobby.
Fortunately I have learned the hard way that self restraint is very necessary. It's a sign of the times that people need stuff like this or the other stuff that censors the free exchange of information.
As for free speech, it is unfortunate that the people who actually have something valuable to say restrain themselves to much; while those who are simply full of $#!+ have no restraint at all.
In terms of sheer numbers the mass of American citizens far overwhelms the military of the U.S.
While it is true that the weapons of the U.S. Military could kill many citizens they could never win over their hearts and minds. The whole of the population could be destroyed but then what would be left for tyranny to rule?
Virtually ALL revolutions are fomented by a small group of zealots with neutral support of the populace. Even the revolutionary war wasn't won in the conventional sense but was a guerrilla war which so increased the costs to England such that England simply quit.
So it was in Vietnam and so it will be in Iraq.
No matter how WMD's are applied to the rebels they will never be conquered. They can only be killed and be replaced by new insurgents. This was evident in the writings of the framers of the constitution then which is the whole purpose of the Second Amendment. While the Military has discipline, organization and far superior weapons they will never match the orneriness of the determined heart of a patriot defending his honor, his home and his way of life.
I would strongly disagree with that. The current military is stretched very thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government would have no chance against a determined American populace. The key word is "determined".
However, the second amendment does not confer any new right upon the people, it merely says that the right we already had "shall not be infringed." This is the question the SCOTUS did not address.
My interpretation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." means that there shall be no laws which infringe or hinder a person's right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment makes no mention of what type of arms nor does it say anything about reasonable restrictions.
The writings of the framers said quite a lot about the type of arms in sum that anything the military had the people could also have. In fact the Miller Decision made that same point in that a sawed off shotgun was in fact a military weapon and as such should be legal for any person to possess.
Machine guns are legal to possess also if you pay the transfer tax.
The purpose of the second amendment was to insure that every person be able to have the means to repel a hostile government. If the government should start attacking people to such an extent that people in general became outraged then there would be revolution and what's more the people in government know this fact and the fact that they would lose. This is why they seek to disarm the people.
An armed person is a citizen. an unarmed person is a subject.
Can you be more specific about exactly where in Article 2 it states that the executive shall have the power to disregard the constitution or any provision of the Bill of Rights? I have heard this argument before and at least in my copy of the constitution it says nothing of the sort. It DOES say in Article 2, Section1, Clause 8:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
But then I am not a politician, attorney, judge or a member of any presidential administration (past or present) so I don't have the benefit of divine inspiration and am simply relying on my own reading skills and common sense.
Under certain circumstances, the corporate veil can be pierced and the actual perpetrators of criminal activity can be prosecuted. Just look at ENRON.
He probably won't bother to look up "Epistemologically" either.
AWW... Now you've gone and fucked up his whole argument without letting him in on the joke. OTOH he probably wouldn't get it even if you explained it to him.
I've had guns in my dwellings for over 40 years. I don't care what your studies and statistics show because of one simple fact. If somebody breaks into my home while I am there he will be shot. Not only will I shoot them, I will shoot them as many times as it takes to render them no longer a threat. This is how law enforcement people are trained and it is a sensible response.
An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a victim.
If you are so sure a gun in your house is unwise I invite you to post a sign in your yard that says "Gun Free Zone."
You may now continue with your suicidal lifestyle.
I would have walked away and not taken their money. Even though they knew their security was wide open they could have sued me when somebody penetrated their (non)security.
The cost of defending against such a baseless lawsuit would be many times that check and you could still lose given the tech savvy or the average juror or judge.
Even though it is often painful and time consuming to explain security to my clients, I have often refused to allow weak security on the systems I manage.
Do you even know what the word "insurgent" means? An insurgent is a rebel. A native Iraqi who's defending his country against a foreign invader (US) and rebelling against a puppet government.
If an insurgent came here he would be a foreign enemy but by no stretch of the imagination could he be an insurgent in our country.
Try to think critically and see past the propaganda and the bullshit instead of just parroting phrases that you really can't be bothered to understand.
An Anarcho-Capitalist is as I understand it to be without referring to online definitions, a person who believes that laws are inherently evil and doesn't feel compelled to obey them unless it is to his advantage to do so.
A capitalist is one who believes that he has a right to his own property and the property he has purchased from a willing seller with no force or coercion involved. He believes he has an absolute right to sell that property to whoever he chooses at a price they both agree on. Again without force or coercion. He also owns himself and the things he has produced by his own efforts. He has to right to sell himself into servitude for whatever price and terms he and a willing buyer can agree on. This includes any arrangement from a few hours per day to total slavery. This goes along with the Anarchist part.
In tune with both the anarchist and the capitalist parts a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller is a private matter and cannot be taxed, prohibited or otherwise interfered with by others. If you don't like me buying drugs then you are welcome to go away and bother somebody else. My body and what I do with it are my business so go away. Don't give me any silly crap about your looking out for me, you're not, you're just an asshole do-gooder and worthy of extermination IMHO.
Is that your concept of Anarcho-Capitalist?
Feel free to flame me, I need a chuckle now and then.
Cheers
First, glad to see I'm not the only A/C on /.
Back on topic, IP in the digital age is rapidly becoming irrelevant because anything which can be created and stored in digital form can be copied. Anything which is meant to be accessible to anyone else, especially to the public is ipso-facto public domain because even copy protected DVD's which can be viewed can be copied simply by copying the decoded image, audio, etc... There was a public debacle around the time the internet was beginning to be used by the public in which copy protection of diskettes was defeated rather easily by various means. You'd think they'd learn but they never do.
Far better methods are available for protecting IP such as the "activation" required by Microsoft products and various install codes made necessary by shareware creators.
No IP laws are really necessary to protect these products and the code keys are much more effective anyway.
Has anyone been to TPB lately? I have.
Most Anarcho/Capitalists simply see no need for IP laws or any other laws for that matter. But that's a discussion best conducted elsewhere by people who are intellectually open minded about such things and are more in tune with reality than most.
Back on topic, IP laws just don't work well across national boundaries and usually don't work at all. (See reference to TPB above.)
How effective do you think complaining to a Chinese LEO would be after a PC trojan stole all your personal info and emailed it to an ip address in China?
To protect an E-Book with some sort of cryptography I'm sure is possible, ask a cryptography expert, but then copying the decrypted version would be simple so why make the effort?
By now the reader should be getting the idea.
As for the moral aspect, try to understand why some things can be produced and sold and others are free such as air and water. The reason is that some things are difficult to reproduce while others are so easily obtained by anyone that there is no point in trying. Of course conditions are not the same everywhere. There are places where air and water could be sold for very high prices.
However, if anything in digital form can be copied at essentially no cost is it immoral to do so? Because water is easily found is drinking it immoral? Is breathing immoral?
I'm sure some will consider their works to be property and it is as long as it is under your control. The second you post it on the internet in digital form it becomes public domain. Just because a law may say it's IP doesn't alter reality. However when enforcement of a law becomes impossible it ceases to be a law.
Yeah, I know. Reality bites.
And before you say something like "Water costs money. Just look at my water bill." I maintain that you aren't paying for the water you're paying for its purification and delivery to your tap. The same goes for bottled water, which I also pay for. You could very easily collect rain water and pump that to your system as many people do. My grandparents did just that.
All that being said, if you feel morally bound to pay for something which is "free", I am perfectly OK with you doing so. I often "pay" for freeware because it's so valuable to me that I wish the maker to be compensated, even if he did it for fun. I also code for hire and I consider what I write to be the property of the buyer. But that doesn't stop me from reusing code. This is because I sell solutions for problems, NOT software. If somebody reuses my code I consider it a complement that somebody thinks my work is good enough to copy. However trying to track down this person for prosecution would be silly IMHO. I am hopefully too busy coding for someone else in order to get paid for that. The only thing I have to sell aside from the objects which I posses because nobody considers them worth the effort to steal given that I am fully capable of preventing the theft by a number of ways which include homicide, are the products of my mind and other physical effort
Um... Sorry to take so long in replying to this. I tend to be somewhat touchy when posters attack me personally. Have you an actual argument or just more Insults? What every one seems to have missed is that accidents happen for a wide variety of reasons. In order to have no risk of meeting somebody who is nondistracted we would need to put the driver in an isolation box such that he can only see what he needs to see in order to operate the vehicle properly. This would be intolerable. Statistically some minor distractions are of little consequence. Requiring hands free operation is an acceptable infringement of liberty for most people but banning cell phone use by drivers is not. This same logic can be applied to the other nondriving activities to one extent or the other but banning those activities is unwarranted because we all do things which are risky to a level that varies with the individual. While you may consider cell phone use to be too distracting others do not. But then they may feel that some of YOUR activities are to risky also. We all accept the risk of driving with the knowledge that other drivers may be driving while distracted but we allow them the freedom to do this while accepting the risk because we need to get places ourselves and be unmolested by some do-gooder who feels he can restrict our freedoms "because it's good for us." To live a life without risk is not living at all and is impossible anyway. We all take risks and we all have accidents and get injured and we all eventually die. C'est la vie.
I take it as a high honor to be called a Fucking twit by Anonymous Coward who is just an ordinary twit. Twits are in general quite enjoyable to fuck. They squeal real good.
Yeah! Then we could even get kids to report their parents for doing stupid things. What a great society that would be. With neighbors peeking at you through the mini-blinds and reporting you for putting your trash out to early.
Even so there are levels of risk that are acceptable. Life is risky but we take the risk of taking a shower knowing that we may slip and fall and become injured or die as a result. We drive because going somewhere is worth the risk of having an accident. We listen to books on tape or the radio because the risk of being to distracted is better than being bored. We talk on the cell phone because the communication is worth the risk. These risks are manageable but a life without risk is not worth living. Get over it already. OH, and we eat food at the risk of getting food poisoning because it is better than dying of starvation. However if you don't want to risk it perhaps the world is better off without another idiot.
I wonder if all those black helicopters run on leaded fuel.
Like a search for drugs, the police need permission to search for untaxed fuel don't they? So what happens if you refuse to allow them to dip your tank?
"Filming police officer not invasion of privacy * The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Washington's Privacy Act does not prohibit filming a police officer, allowing a civil rights lawsuit against the officer to advance." http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/1105johnso.html --- End Paste --- Though it doesn't directly apply to PA. it sets a strong precedent which can be cited by someone arrested in other locations. The Police in the performance of their official duties have no expectation of privacy and therefore this law does not apply.