Each time I watch the video---concerned by the preview image which has me looking like a muppet---I get a Pfizer anti-counterfeiting ad that uses the loaded term "rogue website."
I've been interested to see how much of the Bitcoin discussion is driven by its value as an investment vehicle. It's as if there's a forthcoming IPO or something.
Currency is a product that allows people and societies to avoid the transaction costs involved in barter. Some dimensions of currencies' utility include: liquidity/mass adoption, stable value/inflation resistance, surveillance resistance, seizure and theft resistance, convenience/speed/light weight, and a few other things I haven't thought of or remembered just now.
Bitcoin is better along some dimensions (e.g. highly inflation resistant, prospectively very convenient, and fairly surveillance and seizure resistant) and worse along other dimensions (highly illiquid as yet, and not very theft resistant - see 'cybersecurity,' including BitCoin7; MtGox was a close call, I guess). A lot of these things are technologically and socially determined, hence the "as yet"s and "propsectively," so I find the #Bitcoinfail meme at least premature. Status quo bias probably produced a #bottledwaterfail meme back in the day...
A notable theme here in the comments is that money requires central management. Study your history and you'll see that money came into existence spontaneously and without central management, and that fiat currency (i.e. centrally managed, with value established first by decree or law) always fails to maintain its value. The chart looks pretty much the same from the first fiat money issued in China thousands of years ago right up to Zimbabwe: a long slow decline, a hastening of the decline, sometimes a little recovery, then the value falls through the floor.
The value of money, just like everything else, rests on consensus. I think the question of where Bitcoin should be valued vis a vis other currencies and things will be socially and technologically determined by its "viscosity." If it's *only* used for transactions, it will have a low value compared to other things because it might be held for the hour or two it takes for a transaction to register and for the Bitcoin to be sold again. If it ends up sitting in people's wallet files (let's hope they know how to secure them), it will have a higher value compared to other things because there will be "less" of it around. Where it comes to rest doesn't matter. At scale, its value will be stable.
The alternative currency game is a long game that could take off incredibly quickly when the dollar and Euro make their way down the fiat money value curve. It's good to think ahead about what might happen in that event. Having a true online currency might be (and cause) a pretty cool shift in world history at that point.
So Bitcoin (and the underlying concept) are really interesting, important, and barely thought through yet. Here's hoping I get around to writing the definitive paper on it before the big monetary collapse!
No. It's really not. If someone walks up your driveway and won't leave on your command, you don't get to assault or batter that person. You violate their still-existing rights if you do. And if you shoot the person, you will go down for murder exactly as if you shot them in a public street. With "right to life," you refer to the narrow case (that's one case, not "many") when deadly force is used in defense of the home. I believe the rule survives in some states, and narrowly tailored it's one I support, but the right to use deadly force in defense of home is not part of a general waiver of all rights that occurs when someone commits a trespass. Back to the books (which I must say with some irony because you haven't cracked the books in the first instance ;-)
You might be surprised to find that even parents aren't given all-day every-day access to schools. With "and not summer break" you appear to admit that a school is not a beach or public park, wide open to anyone who has the notion of stepping foot on its soil.
If the principal is to face the consequences of his actions, as you say, and among those consequences is appearing in civil court, as you say, just who else is going to bring him to civil court than the kids whose images he made into a titillating movie-show? You dismissed their grounds for suit and backed their suit in the same comment.
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.
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.
[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.” ...
From the Irony Department...
Each time I watch the video---concerned by the preview image which has me looking like a muppet---I get a Pfizer anti-counterfeiting ad that uses the loaded term "rogue website."
Let's Think About Currency
I've been interested to see how much of the Bitcoin discussion is driven by its value as an investment vehicle. It's as if there's a forthcoming IPO or something.
Currency is a product that allows people and societies to avoid the transaction costs involved in barter. Some dimensions of currencies' utility include: liquidity/mass adoption, stable value/inflation resistance, surveillance resistance, seizure and theft resistance, convenience/speed/light weight, and a few other things I haven't thought of or remembered just now.
Bitcoin is better along some dimensions (e.g. highly inflation resistant, prospectively very convenient, and fairly surveillance and seizure resistant) and worse along other dimensions (highly illiquid as yet, and not very theft resistant - see 'cybersecurity,' including BitCoin7; MtGox was a close call, I guess). A lot of these things are technologically and socially determined, hence the "as yet"s and "propsectively," so I find the #Bitcoinfail meme at least premature. Status quo bias probably produced a #bottledwaterfail meme back in the day...
A notable theme here in the comments is that money requires central management. Study your history and you'll see that money came into existence spontaneously and without central management, and that fiat currency (i.e. centrally managed, with value established first by decree or law) always fails to maintain its value. The chart looks pretty much the same from the first fiat money issued in China thousands of years ago right up to Zimbabwe: a long slow decline, a hastening of the decline, sometimes a little recovery, then the value falls through the floor.
The value of money, just like everything else, rests on consensus. I think the question of where Bitcoin should be valued vis a vis other currencies and things will be socially and technologically determined by its "viscosity." If it's *only* used for transactions, it will have a low value compared to other things because it might be held for the hour or two it takes for a transaction to register and for the Bitcoin to be sold again. If it ends up sitting in people's wallet files (let's hope they know how to secure them), it will have a higher value compared to other things because there will be "less" of it around. Where it comes to rest doesn't matter. At scale, its value will be stable.
The alternative currency game is a long game that could take off incredibly quickly when the dollar and Euro make their way down the fiat money value curve. It's good to think ahead about what might happen in that event. Having a true online currency might be (and cause) a pretty cool shift in world history at that point.
So Bitcoin (and the underlying concept) are really interesting, important, and barely thought through yet. Here's hoping I get around to writing the definitive paper on it before the big monetary collapse!
Re:
I own Bitcoin personally, so I have the potential liability that EFF shied away from. I'm not particularly worried, by the way.
Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
No. It's really not. If someone walks up your driveway and won't leave on your command, you don't get to assault or batter that person. You violate their still-existing rights if you do. And if you shoot the person, you will go down for murder exactly as if you shot them in a public street. With "right to life," you refer to the narrow case (that's one case, not "many") when deadly force is used in defense of the home. I believe the rule survives in some states, and narrowly tailored it's one I support, but the right to use deadly force in defense of home is not part of a general waiver of all rights that occurs when someone commits a trespass. Back to the books (which I must say with some irony because you haven't cracked the books in the first instance ;-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
You might be surprised to find that even parents aren't given all-day every-day access to schools. With "and not summer break" you appear to admit that a school is not a beach or public park, wide open to anyone who has the notion of stepping foot on its soil.
Re: Re: Re:
If the principal is to face the consequences of his actions, as you say, and among those consequences is appearing in civil court, as you say, just who else is going to bring him to civil court than the kids whose images he made into a titillating movie-show? You dismissed their grounds for suit and backed their suit in the same comment.
Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
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.
Re: Re: Wrong Court
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.
Re:
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.
Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
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.
Re: Wrong Court
+1
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.
It's an Arguable Case, at Least
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."
There are more ways this hearing went off the rails...
I summarized them here:
http://techliberation.com/2011/05/10/privacy-not-a-focus-of-senate-mobile-privacy-hearing/
There's Plenty of Astroturf to Go Around
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.
4th Amendment Law Gone Bad
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.
Re: Bogusity
I thought the word was "bogosity"—and either way I think the word is, uh, bogus...
Re:
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.
Re: Re: How About "Publicity"?
Turns out I had more to say on the word choices. Try this on, cross-commented straight from Jarvis: