5 ms·

This statement is pretty confusing to me. It seems that they're attempting to use the _legal_ phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a decidedly non-lega

by eykanal 11y ago

This statement is pretty confusing to me. It seems that they're attempting to use the _legal_ phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a decidedly non-legal sense. The term is in fact a legal one (see here [1] for a definition, or just google the term), and after reading through the definition, I find it hard for anyone to argue that they _should_ have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when using _any_ public network. Sure, Tor users are using the network because it provides anonymity, but anonymity and "expectation of privacy" are two very distinct concepts. Tor allows them to PUBLICLY communicate ANONYMOUSLY. You can have an anonymous communication without any expectation of privacy, the same way you can have privacy without anonymity. Note that I am not a lawyer and am making assumptions and inferences about legal matters based on internet searches. YMMV. [1]: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-the--reasonable-expectation-of-privacy--.html http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-i...

upofadown 11y ago
The discussion in your link specifically says it does not apply to "searches by persons acting on behalf of a city, state, or federal government.". It links to this discussion of Fourth Amendment rights which seems more applicable to the case here: * http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-the-fourth-amendment-applies.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-the-fourth-... That page contains this quote: >The Supreme Court has explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection ... " But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected (see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 [1967]).
ajross 11y ago
> anonymity and "expectation of privacy" are two very distinct concepts Can you elaborate on that? I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make. One can construct a semantic distinction, but it doesn't seem relevant here. Clearly, Tor users are using Tor because they believe the copious online content describing it as either or both of "private" and "anonymous". To argue that their "expectation of {privacy|anonymity}" is "unreasonable" seems to strain logic by any definition, be it "legal" or not.
- eykanal 11y ago
  The distinction is that one has a clear legal definition in a court of law and one does not. The judge in this case has examined the case and found that Tor users do not have the legal right to having any expectation of privacy. The fact that we use the term anonymous as a synonym for privacy in some cases has no bearing on the judges ruling.
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    Your own link contains this: It's important to note that the expectation of privacy discussed here means something different than when it's used in connection with searches by persons acting on behalf of a city, state, or federal government. So how is it relevant? They clearly say the definition discussed is between private individuals, not the state and individuals.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

by eykanal 11y ago

upofadown 11y ago

The discussion in your link specifically says it does not apply to "searches by persons acting on behalf of a city, state, or federal government.". It links to this discussion of Fourth Amendment rights which seems more applicable to the case here: * http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-the-fourth-amendment-applies.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-the-fourth-... That page contains this quote: >The Supreme Court has explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection ... " But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected (see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 [1967]).

ajross 11y ago

> anonymity and "expectation of privacy" are two very distinct concepts Can you elaborate on that? I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make. One can construct a semantic distinction, but it doesn't seem relevant here. Clearly, Tor users are using Tor because they believe the copious online content describing it as either or both of "private" and "anonymous". To argue that their "expectation of {privacy|anonymity}" is "unreasonable" seems to strain logic by any definition, be it "legal" or not.

eykanal 11y ago
The distinction is that one has a clear legal definition in a court of law and one does not. The judge in this case has examined the case and found that Tor users do not have the legal right to having any expectation of privacy. The fact that we use the term anonymous as a synonym for privacy in some cases has no bearing on the judges ruling.
- mattmanser 11y ago
  Your own link contains this: It's important to note that the expectation of privacy discussed here means something different than when it's used in connection with searches by persons acting on behalf of a city, state, or federal government. So how is it relevant? They clearly say the definition discussed is between private individuals, not the state and individuals.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]