Re: Re: Re: I didn't see this as a 4th amendment issue
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue in Katz had nothing to do with the actual method of communication. The police used a listening device on the EXTERIOR of the booth to listen in on his conversation while he was placing an illegal bet. The SC ruled that the phone booth was a private place since he had shut the door prior to making the phone call and the use of the device breached his privacy.
I feel this IS a 4th Amendment issue given the state of technology and society's expectations.
The way the logic of previous rulings has been thus far is that any communications that are stored somewhere by a 3rd party are no longer private. Also, communications aren't private in the sense that your ISP/phone provider/etc need to forward the data to billing in order to process the bills. Again, a 3rd party.
The way we txt/email/chat these days, everything pretty much goes through a 3rd party. In this case, given the logic the court has used thus far, its not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that any data sent via a company owned device is accessible to the company as well. Thus, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy."
I'm not suggesting this is right or wrong. Technology is leaps and bounds ahead of law and lawmakers. Perhaps in this day and age, the way communications are handled, SOME 3rd parties should be within the protective bubble of "reasonable expectation of privacy." Society EXPECTS that the raunchy txts/emails sent to significant others are "private" or we probably wouldn't be sentat all.
Essentially, the slow pace that the law is taking to catch up with the day-to-day technology we use is eroding our rights.
I'm presently reading "Unleashing the Killer App" by Larry Downes. In one section he writes the following:
"The Twelve Principles of Killer App Design
Reshaping the Landscape
1. Outsource to the customer.
2. Cannibalize your markets.
3. Treat each customer as a market segment of one.
4. Create communities of value.
Building New Connections
5. Replace rude interfaces with learning interfaces.
6. Ensure continuity for the customer, not yourself.
7. Give away as much information as you can.
8. Structure every transavtion as a joint venture.
Redefining the Interior
9. Treat your assets as liabilities.
10. Destroy your value chain.
11. MAnage innovation as a portfolio of options.
12. Hire the children."
(Table 2.A p77)
Funny how this book was written in 1998 and 12yrs later people are starting to wake up...
This case seems analogous to the NY Times forcing the the Pulse app to be removed - both data is public, both essentially scraped the data and used it.
By wrong, I'm assuming you mean morally? Ethically? Just because something is morally or ethically wrong, doesn't mean that it is illegal.
On a side note, I copied the following from spotcrime.com/tos (Accessed 06/15/10 at 2:45pm EST)
"SpotCrime.com Disclaimer: The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source. "
Furthermore, the TOU on crimespot looks like it was copied/pasted or using some really bad boiler plate and the disclaimer is in REALLY TINY font at the bottom (6pt?). The TOU on crimereports is clear and looks specifically written for the site. It also has a separate disclaimer link.
I agree with you 100%. Another issue is the fact that practically anyone can get a driver's license (hell, you can practically get one out of a cracker jack box) and the fact that that is used to open a bank account, get a cell phone, etc. All these IDs are being used for the most ridiculous things, none of which really coincide with their intended uses.
"And, finally, even if you plan for certain data to be deleted, there's not necessarily a guarantee that it actually has been deleted."
Agreed. Forensic toolkits anyone? If the DB is going to "delete" information, short of destroying the storage device the data is on, its going to take additional steps to make sure that the data is gone for good. The DoD and Gutman (spelling?) standards come to mind...
It just seems like a lot more effort than a company is probably willing to spend to adequately delete data.
I'm surprised institutions haven't taken issue with sites such as ratemyprofessors.com - some of the things I've read about my profs is pretty ridiculous.
Essentially, people take for granted the loss of anonymity they have on the internet - you can publish information readily available to millions of people but at the same time you can easily be connected to what you say. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Also, its one thing for a state/public institution to raise these issues, another for a private institution since public institutions are governed by the laws/regulations in the state they reside in while private instutions are pretty much free to make whatever rules they want.
I've had the opportunity to write on Cyberwarfare on several occasions.
Essentially it is asymmetrical warfare (akin to terrorism) aimed to cause disruption of a country's command and control/communications infrastructure.
(Symmetrical warfare is what we know as more conventional warfare - Korea, WW2, WW1 altho not so much since it was still a war of attrician. Vietnam, Gulf Wars 1 & 2/Afghanistan are all for the most part asymmetrical wars.)
Aside from your common hacker thugs breaking into systems and wreaking havok, this mass disruption is virtually worthless unless its followed by more conventional attacks ie invasion.
Look back to the incident between Russia and Georga back in 2008. Now, I don't recall any spicifics, but PRIOR to Russia's physical invasion of Georgia, hackers conducted DDOS attacks, defaced websites, rerouted/broke communications, etc. This thrust Georgia essentially into a state of chaos. Without this state of chaos, any large scale troop invasion would have been met with adequate resistance. Given the state that Georgia was in, Russia pretty much walked right in and owned the place.
Drawing from this very recent example, unless we REALLY piss off a country to the point that they want to start a confrontation with the US, I think any "threats" of cyberwar are just that - threats. Aside from causing sporadic disruption, large scale loss of life likely wouldn't occur unless there was a conventional attack following the cyberattack. Any cybersecurity incidents that have taken place are likely 1 of 2 things: recon conducted by a county (now we all point fingers to China and N Korea) or rougue groups attempting to cause disruption in a terrorist-like way.
There's a lot more that I can write on this subject, but in an attempt to keep it brief, I feel (and I am far from an expert on the subject) that running around screaming "hackers" and "cyberwar" just caters to the population's lack of understanding on the subject and feeds the hysteria. Its similar to stepping infront of a corporate boss and word dropping "security" and "privacy" to a person who knows enough about a computer to write an email, casually surf the web, and word process.
All in all, its not the "threat" that people believe or that the gov't portrays it to be.
This makes a lot of sense, potentially paving the way for a new business model for the film industry. As more entities are harnessing the use of technology - specifically the internet - the extent of the film industry's usage revolves around advertising/marketing. If a film were to be purposefully "leaked" by the makers, perhaps including brief breaks in the film for ads (similar to Hulu) and cutting out some scenes, it could garner more interest in the film thus possibly increasing theater/DVD sales in addition to other ad revenue.
However, the one problem with this (as mentioned in the article) is with respect to crappy movies - from what I can see - and I'm no expert in marketing/advertising - makers of the film purposefully push actors, scenes, music, etc in their trailers to attract people on opening day. We can see how good films last longer in theaters than the crappy ones - any purposeful "leak" of a crappy film would hurt the opening day sales.
Despite the negative aspect(s), I'd like to see how other film makers approach this idea.