4 ms·

>Every time I walk into the local 7-11, my actions generate a videotaped record of my presence This is completely, and I mean completely different. There's no

>Every time I walk into the local 7-11, my actions generate a videotaped record of my presence This is completely, and I mean completely different. There's no expectation of privacy in a 7-11. As such, the two situations are incomparable despite their superficial similarity. Whether there's an expectation of privacy online is unclear, and the government is trying to capitalize on this by setting a precedent.

tptacek 10y ago
Can you explain how they're completely different? Say I decide to meet someone at a Starbucks. Now Starbucks has not only my drink preference, where I was at a particular time of day, what I was wearing, but also who I was with at the time. They have more information than the phone company.
- omginternets 10y ago
  I did: expectation of privacy. And I don't understand your example at all, as it argues in my favor. Starbucks is generally regarded as having no expectation of privacy.
rayiner 10y ago
With regard to phone records, the relevant precedent was set almost 40 years ago in Smith v. Maryland, which held that the government can subpoena phone records without a warrant. And that case was correctly decided for two different reasons: 1) The "expectation of privacy" must be objectively reasonable. It's objectively true that phone call records are not private: they are kept by the phone company in the ordinary course of business and many people have access to them. As a purely factual matter, a lot more people (people who, unlike the 7-11 clerk, you've never even met!) have access to your data at a phone company than at a 7-11. So any subjective belief that those details are private is not objectively reasonable. 2) Callers have no ownership or control over call records. Even if you don't subscribe to the "property rights" view of the 4th amendment, you have to admit that it's less reasonable to have an expectation of privacy in something someone else owns and controls. It's not reasonable to expect privacy as to a 7-11's recordings of what you do on its premises because they own the recordings and control the premises. Similarly, it's not reasonable to expect privacy as to AT&T's records of what you do on its telephone network.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  > objectively reasonable Why am I not surprised that our laws are underpinned by a paradox. > It's objectively true that phone call records are not private By this standard, is anything private? If I have a home security system run by a third party, does that mean my front door is not private because I share it with ADT? Maybe instead of getting a warrant LEOs can request ADT to unlock the front door. > you have to admit that it's less reasonable to have an expectation of privacy in something someone else owns and controls My phone is controlled by apple. My car is controlled by on-star. My money is controlled by visa. It sounds like the only reasonable expectation to privacy is in your own brain.. for now.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Unlocking your front door is an action, not information that ADT has generated about you. Also, whether or not your door is unlocked has little bearing on whether investigators can enter your private house. Can you generate a better example?
    - smokeyj 10y ago
      My point is people expect privacy even when sharing information with third parties. Just because your xbox kinect is always watching and amazon echo listening - doesn't mean the average consumer doesn't expect privacy. My question is, why limit dragnet surveillance to only metadata? It seems arbitrary to not also record full transcripts -- if we really don't have any expectation to privacy.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        We may not have an expectation of privacy in the specific records the phone company keeps to bill us and manage their networks, but we have always had an expectation of privacy in the contents of the calls themselves.
      - rhino369 10y ago
        People don't expect privacy when sharing information with third parties, they expect confidentiality. But the law doesn't respect that. If you tell me in confidence, that you kidnapped the Limburg baby, I can legally tell whoever I want. I can even be forced by the government to tell them everything I know. The difference is that phone companies don't record full transcripts. Just like my kinect isn't recording my room right now. That's why I have a reasonable expectation of privacy even though there is a kinect in the room. But I don't have an expectation that the requests I make to xbox is private.

tptacek 10y ago

Can you explain how they're completely different? Say I decide to meet someone at a Starbucks. Now Starbucks has not only my drink preference, where I was at a particular time of day, what I was wearing, but also who I was with at the time. They have more information than the phone company.

omginternets 10y ago
I did: expectation of privacy. And I don't understand your example at all, as it argues in my favor. Starbucks is generally regarded as having no expectation of privacy.

rayiner 10y ago

With regard to phone records, the relevant precedent was set almost 40 years ago in Smith v. Maryland, which held that the government can subpoena phone records without a warrant. And that case was correctly decided for two different reasons: 1) The "expectation of privacy" must be objectively reasonable. It's objectively true that phone call records are not private: they are kept by the phone company in the ordinary course of business and many people have access to them. As a purely factual matter, a lot more people (people who, unlike the 7-11 clerk, you've never even met!) have access to your data at a phone company than at a 7-11. So any subjective belief that those details are private is not objectively reasonable. 2) Callers have no ownership or control over call records. Even if you don't subscribe to the "property rights" view of the 4th amendment, you have to admit that it's less reasonable to have an expectation of privacy in something someone else owns and controls. It's not reasonable to expect privacy as to a 7-11's recordings of what you do on its premises because they own the recordings and control the premises. Similarly, it's not reasonable to expect privacy as to AT&T's records of what you do on its telephone network.

smokeyj 10y ago
> objectively reasonable Why am I not surprised that our laws are underpinned by a paradox. > It's objectively true that phone call records are not private By this standard, is anything private? If I have a home security system run by a third party, does that mean my front door is not private because I share it with ADT? Maybe instead of getting a warrant LEOs can request ADT to unlock the front door. > you have to admit that it's less reasonable to have an expectation of privacy in something someone else owns and controls My phone is controlled by apple. My car is controlled by on-star. My money is controlled by visa. It sounds like the only reasonable expectation to privacy is in your own brain.. for now.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Unlocking your front door is an action, not information that ADT has generated about you. Also, whether or not your door is unlocked has little bearing on whether investigators can enter your private house. Can you generate a better example?
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    My point is people expect privacy even when sharing information with third parties. Just because your xbox kinect is always watching and amazon echo listening - doesn't mean the average consumer doesn't expect privacy. My question is, why limit dragnet surveillance to only metadata? It seems arbitrary to not also record full transcripts -- if we really don't have any expectation to privacy.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      We may not have an expectation of privacy in the specific records the phone company keeps to bill us and manage their networks, but we have always had an expectation of privacy in the contents of the calls themselves.
    - rhino369 10y ago
      People don't expect privacy when sharing information with third parties, they expect confidentiality. But the law doesn't respect that. If you tell me in confidence, that you kidnapped the Limburg baby, I can legally tell whoever I want. I can even be forced by the government to tell them everything I know. The difference is that phone companies don't record full transcripts. Just like my kinect isn't recording my room right now. That's why I have a reasonable expectation of privacy even though there is a kinect in the room. But I don't have an expectation that the requests I make to xbox is private.