My experience as a public school student was that schools are generally open to the students who attend them, to parents at times, and to teachers, administrators, staff, and coaches. Strangers to the school are escorted off the premises if found.
Do others believe that school property is open to visitation by anyone regardless of purpose? I doubt it, considering what it would that do to the functioning of the school.
Re: Re: Presence of a video camera doesn't invalidate rights.
Under the privacy torts, there is not an "all bets are off" rule, as many commenters here think. If you've done something wrong or odd, even in a public place, someone else doesn't get to advertise it as far and wide as they please. There is a limit to how far and wide they can advertise it, and the principal of the school arguably exceeded that limit.
I would say that the case does get stronger if there's a child pornography conviction. It would show that the community regards people of that young age deserving of protection, even from their own actions. Revealing the intimate behavior of a vulnerable person is more outrageous than of a non-vulnerable person. Stronger case.
You should read your own post. You dismiss the case, saying that the students should have to deal with the consequences, and also say that the principal should be brought into civil court. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Better to remain silent and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
A school is not accessible to everyone. And where on earth do you get the idea that you lose privacy rights if you trespass? The penalty for trespass is not waiver of your tort rights. Better to remain silent and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Damages are an issue, but I can see a high-schooler being mortified and deeply affected in the quality of her life and relationships by this kind of exposure. The law of the state dictates whether some kind of physical manifestation of mental or emotional injury is required.
I'm not sure I would scare-quote "privacy rights" here. The common law cause of action against disclosure of private facts could well apply.
It'll be an open question based on the specific location and time whether it was a public place. If it was a public place or semi-public place, that doesn't necessarily mean that everything that can happen there is fair game for taping and replaying for an audience that doesn't have a legitimate interest in seeing the footage.
Surveillance cameras are meant to secure school grounds and students, which could imply a limitation on the use of the footage to such purposes. Indeed, the principal had at least an ethical obligation to protect the students, including from each other (and their mutually irresponsible actions), which he did not do. Instead, he used the surveillance camera footage to exploit these young people's ardor for the entertainment of himself and others.
This is not something what would be laughed out of court, and the principal's behavior is so bad relative to his official position and responsibilities that this case has a pretty good chance of success on the merits if the plaintiff's version of events is substantially true.
This seems like a privacy case, much more real than "who is tracking me so they can advertise to me based on my interest in golf."
Campus Progress is organized by the Center for American Progress, a left-wing think-tank/activist group in Washington, D.C. I'd wager that there are more citizens associated with Citizens Against Government Waste than students associated with Campus Progress.
This says nothing about the copyright merits. I'm just saying there's no need to over-flavor the story with a David and Goliath theme that probably doesn't bear up.
You've captured what the cases hold: that people don't have Fourth Amendment rights at the border. They've gotten here despite the plain language of the Fourth Amendment which bars unreasonable searches without exception or reservation.
What courts have done in case over case is slip from finding border searches reasonable --- they often are --- to finding that all border searches are reasonable, to finding that the prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply at the border. It's a nice illustration of how doctrine misleads courts and lawyers, eroding our rights over time.
I hope it works, but I'm not a big fan of using First Amendment arguments to prop up the Fourth. We must wave the words of the Fourth Amendment in front of courts until they apply it again.
The government should be able to search for contraband, dutiable items, and crime evidence that it has reasonable belief it will find. But asserting the power to search and copy data held by any U.S. traveler returning to the country is unreasonable.
So everyone go vote "No" in support of Jim right now!
[Caution: That subject line was a little self-serving.]
I've just submitted my final statement in the debate, which goes up at Economist.com Thursday, with a "decision" to be rendered on Friday. You can vote (or change your vote) any time before then.
I don't expect to win --- too many people want privacy protection to be a free lunch handily provided by a few governmental tweaks. But it's a fun debate format, and a good opportunity to sort through some of the issues.
I don't think Post is talking about the legal aspects as such. He's talking about the avoidance of legal risks that businesspeople, curators, and their legal advisors rightly engage in. Legal niceties don't matter for squat if someone sues you. Unclear rules fertilize risk aversion, that's what you have here, and that's Post's point.
I wouldn't blame counsel if they advise against creating unknown thousands of potential plaintiffs, any one of whom could cost a company or project $$thousands.
Turns out I had more to say on the word choices. Try this on, cross-commented straight from Jarvis:
A further thought: With my preference for “publicity,” I’m focusing attention on the human actors involved, what they’re doing, and why. To illustrate: When I switch my Facebook status to “single,” I give publicity to that fact, probably because I’m out looking. I’m in charge of whether it goes out, and it’s availability is something I’m responsible for.
When we talk about “publicness,” the focus is on the data, treating it as the object of other (possibly hidden) forces. A change of status on Facebook has a “publicness” that’s different from similar announcements on other media in the past. That’s worth talking about, of course, as such.
In sum, each term may be useful in its way. I want people to be responsible for taking steps to protect their privacy — yes, many are woefully uninformed as to how — because it’s the best way to get their privacy adequately protected across all media and circumstances. Thus, my preference for focusing on people with the word “publicity.” ...
Word. I wrote a long-ass comment over on his post about "publicness" vs. "publicity."
Thinking out loud about the substance of his post, I also concluded that I don’t think talking about these two human interests as being *categorically* scarce or abundant is actually helpful. So I seem to want complexification along a different axis.
Now can I get a shout-out for coming up with the stupid verb "complexify"? I'm having a really good time with the irony of doing that while I go all primly semantic on Jarvis! (Chronic joke-explainer, I am...)
Such an awkward locution Jarvis uses --- "publicness" --- rather than the word that describes what he means: "publicity."
He says "publicity" is too "freighted with marketing meaning," but the marketing sense is correct. When they go to bars to see and be seen, people are seeking publicity, marketing themselves to the audiences there. When they Tweet or post pictures online, same deal.
Scott Cleland made up a word, "publicacy," rather than publicity.
I think these folks are complexifying concepts that are fairly simple.