- "It's a case that seems trivial, almost funny, but it raises an important issue: how will our new technologies interface with our old and vital civil liberties?" Neil Richards, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told Ars by e-mail.
"It might seem like a case about pocket-dialing, but it's really a case about how much constitutional protection we will have for our data, which can reveal so much about our activities and our identities. The court probably got this one wrong, but the good news, the big picture, is that the Supreme Court sees the big picture and is starting to extend serious constitutional protection to our phones, computers, and the sensitive data they contain."
What? This seems crazy to me. I lose all expectation of privacy if it's hot out? No summer privacy?"He is no different from the person who exposes in-home activities by leaving drapes open or a webcam on and therefore has not exhibited an expectation of privacy."
The general rule is, if a police officer can reasonably see it during the regular duties he is performing, it is essentially public domain. This is how the DEA justifies the mass collection of license plates, because theoretically an officer could be employed to sit there and write down all of those plates. This saves the government money by not having them employ a police officer at that corner. If the government wanted to, they could put cameras on every street lamp on every street. The legal justification has strong precedent. They only don't because policymakers don't like the idea of paying for the technology to keep a system up and running.
That's such a magnificent question. I so often focus on federal cases in my legal research that I forget that mostly federal cases are about people vs government and not as often (though they exist) people vs people. The main thing that I was basing my background here on was the fourth amendment, which is pretty strictly people vs government. I've been doing some searching on this issue, it seems that this particular type of law is mostly done at the state level, for instance in California: California Penal Code 647 (j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count currency or other negotiable instruments. (i) The defendant was a cohabitant, landlord, tenant, cotenant, employer, employee, or business partner or associate of the victim, or an agent of any of these. (ii) The victim was not in a state of full or partial undress. So these are specific to people, and these laws are called "peeping tom laws" (for obvious reasons). I'm curious how law gets applied to objects that you own that can tell you about a person that invade your privacy (dildos, for instance), but I can't really find much (then again, I am not a lawyer). (i) Who, while loitering, prowling, or wandering upon the private property of another, at any time, peeks in the door or window of any inhabited building or structure, without visible or lawful business with the owner or occupant.
(B) Neither of the following is a defense to the crime specified in this paragraph: