4 ms·

It is private conversation because it is not meant to be made public by its users. Not because Facebook isn't "common carrier". Piece of paper isn't common car

It is private conversation because it is not meant to be made public by its users. Not because Facebook isn't "common carrier". Piece of paper isn't common carrier. If I write a note to my wife and give it myself it is private because I wanted and expected it private. If I taped it to a billboard it means I no longer expect it private and it is public.

otterley 5y ago
You’re mixing up two legal concepts: expectation of privacy and common carriers. Despite phone companies being common carriers (and thus being required to carry communications without censoring them), the Supreme Court has made it clear that people should have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they relay communications through a pay phone. The reasoning was that you give up your right to privacy when you involve a third party to your conversation. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). So the two can coexist. Only common carriers are forced to carry speech unimpeded, regardless of its content. Expectation of privacy is irrelevant to common carrier status. The former is about whether it can be intercepted. The latter is about whether it can be impeded.
- sjy 5y ago
  Katz v. United States held the opposite: “The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a ‘search and seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” More recent decisions suggest that the third party doctrine, according to which there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties, is unlikely to apply to private messages on Facebook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
  - otterley 5y ago
    Crap, my bad. You’re right. Clearly I misremembered the case and should have reviewed it first. I withdraw my point about that. As you said, Katz did say that we do have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to person-to-person communications. However, that has no bearing on whether the carrier can or cannot block the communication. That still hinges on whether the carrier is a common carrier.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      I would suggest blocking and selectively editing messages is different. Conversation on messenger is multiple messages, blocking would be preventing entire conversation. Removing some messages selectively changes meaning of other messages
ryandrake 5y ago
It's not a private conversation. It's content sent to, and hosted on Facebook's servers. Why should Facebook (or HN, or any site) be compelled to host content that it doesn't want? If you ran a web site, should you be disallowed from moderating what user content is available?
- Closi 5y ago
  > It's not a private conversation. It is according to Facebook. Here is a quote from their own website: > We’re dedicated to making sure Messenger is a safe, private, and secure place for you to connect with the people who matter.

otterley 5y ago

You’re mixing up two legal concepts: expectation of privacy and common carriers. Despite phone companies being common carriers (and thus being required to carry communications without censoring them), the Supreme Court has made it clear that people should have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they relay communications through a pay phone. The reasoning was that you give up your right to privacy when you involve a third party to your conversation. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). So the two can coexist. Only common carriers are forced to carry speech unimpeded, regardless of its content. Expectation of privacy is irrelevant to common carrier status. The former is about whether it can be intercepted. The latter is about whether it can be impeded.

sjy 5y ago
Katz v. United States held the opposite: “The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a ‘search and seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” More recent decisions suggest that the third party doctrine, according to which there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties, is unlikely to apply to private messages on Facebook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
- otterley 5y ago
  Crap, my bad. You’re right. Clearly I misremembered the case and should have reviewed it first. I withdraw my point about that. As you said, Katz did say that we do have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to person-to-person communications. However, that has no bearing on whether the carrier can or cannot block the communication. That still hinges on whether the carrier is a common carrier.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    I would suggest blocking and selectively editing messages is different. Conversation on messenger is multiple messages, blocking would be preventing entire conversation. Removing some messages selectively changes meaning of other messages

ryandrake 5y ago

It's not a private conversation. It's content sent to, and hosted on Facebook's servers. Why should Facebook (or HN, or any site) be compelled to host content that it doesn't want? If you ran a web site, should you be disallowed from moderating what user content is available?

Closi 5y ago
> It's not a private conversation. It is according to Facebook. Here is a quote from their own website: > We’re dedicated to making sure Messenger is a safe, private, and secure place for you to connect with the people who matter.