3 ms·
This is silly. It was a publicly accessible URL. A better analogy would be leaving your window blinds open and being upset that your neighbors can see you insid
by yeetsfromhellL2 4y ago
This is silly. It was a publicly accessible URL. A better analogy would be leaving your window blinds open and being upset that your neighbors can see you inside your home. Your neighbors aren't at fault, you are, and you can face criminal charges if you do something lewd inside your home while visible from public property. AT&T is completely at fault here for publicly distributing private info.
- strulovich 4y agoFor an analogy who went all the way up to the Supreme Court see: https://news.artnet.com/market/arne-svenson-neighbors-photographs-supreme-court-286916/amp-page https://news.artnet.com/market/arne-svenson-neighbors-photog...
- yeetsfromhellL2 4y agoThis woman was not guilty after doing this with special equipment, a telephoto lens(!). There was also that guy in another case sitting in his kitchen naked while drinking coffee and reading the morning paper. Some woman decides to walk into his back yard with her kid, sees him, and called the police on him for indecency...it took years for him to get let off and cost him a ton of money to not get any penalties. He was nearly held liable for what someone saw inside his house when they had to be trespassing to see it!
- simiones 4y agoThis case should be held up as a troubling indictment of current legislation, not held up as an example of freedom of expression. It also happens to be irrelevant to the case above, as it seems to have been specifically decided on the merits of the photographs as Art. It would be hard to claim that leaking the emails to Gawker was a form of art, so it may well have ended up differently.
- ascagnel_ 4y agoAnother major difference is that Svenson intentionally omitted faces, so determining identity is very difficult. Leaking emails to Gawker for users' AT&T accounts is partially identifying its users, so it could even be considered a hostile action (against either AT&T, its customers, or both).
- car_analogy 4y agoIf that is hostile, then what is ISPs selling browsing data [1]? Google gathering location data even on those who opt out? Facebook gathering contacts lists and text messages [2]? And no, not selling that data doesn't make the act non-hostile. If company X possessing that data is hostile, why is Facebook/Google/AT&T/Microsoft having it any better? Because of their saint-like reputation? [1] https://www.howtogeek.com/724472/do-isps-track-and-sell-your-browsing-data/ https://www.howtogeek.com/724472/do-isps-track-and-sell-your... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-gathers-texts-phone-data-from-android-devices/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-gathers-texts-phone-da...
- ascagnel_ 4y agoFor anyone confused, this wasn't argued before the US Supreme Court, it was argued before the NY State Supreme Court, which _isn't_ the highest court in the state (that's the Court of Appeals).
- oh_sigh 4y agoIn this analogy, responsible disclosure would be something like I take a peek in your window and then let you know that I can see inside, and then you can take appropriate action since you probably didn't know your blinds were open a bit. What weev did was more like set up a 3d scanning apparatus outside the window and create a perfect 3d scan of my entire house through the little opening in my blinds.