Honeypots mailing list archives

Re: Legal Question about privacy


From: "t. elam" <tee () speakeasy net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 05:40:03 -0700 (PDT)


On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Stefan Kelm wrote:

That is not what several lawyers have told me.  Just because it is
technically feasible to monitor some technology (e.g., 802.11,
cordless phones...) that does *not* make the expectation of privacy
go away, nor make it legal to monitor it.

for the legal geeks out there, the case that governs privacy issues is 
katz. v us, which is when the interpretation of the fourth amendment 
switched from a property view to a privacy one.  this case can be found 
here: 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=389&page=347

the most often cited bit is from the concurring opinion of justice 
harlon, which reads in part:

As the Court's opinion states, "the Fourth Amendment protects people, 
not places." The question, however, is what protection it affords to 
those people. Generally, as here, the answer to that question requires 
reference to a "place." My understanding of the rule that has emerged 
from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that 
a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy 
and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to 
recognize as "reasonable." Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a 
place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements 
that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not "protected" 
because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the 
other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against 
being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances 
would be unreasonable.

so, when trying to decide if a defendant had an "expectation of privacy" 
in regards to his/her actions the court is going to 1) look at whether 
or not the person believed they had an expectation of privacy and took such 
steps towards that goal and 2) if the expectation of privacy the person 
was trying to exhibit is one that society agrees with.

cheers,
t

..............
just t.
..............


Current thread: