4 ms·

In that Burger King, Andy Boyle thought he was listening to the disintegration of a couple’s marriage. He was really hearing the crumbling of his own ethics and

In that Burger King, Andy Boyle thought he was listening to the disintegration of a couple’s marriage. He was really hearing the crumbling of his own ethics and self-restraint. He might also have been hearing the crumbling of his own finances. His surveillance and subsequent reporting may be legally actionable and if I were that couple, I'd be lawyering up about now.

darklajid 15y ago
I didn't downvote you, but - how? And why? Can a conversation that is forced upon other people (in a different setting I could imagine that guests in that BK complain about the couple shouting) still be considered private?
- vannevar 15y ago
  Downvoters aside, it isn't at all out of the question. From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Sections.htm http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Secti... : "One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. " (emphasis added)
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    I have a hard time believing that the tweeter intruded into the couple's business. If anything, the couple intruded into his solitude.
- zecho 15y ago
  I don't think it's privacy that's the issue here, rather the degree of privacy. By live blogging the ordeal, it unwittingly went from an argument in a Burger King in front of a few people to an argument broadcast on the Internet to thousands. I don't think it's illegal and I probably wouldn't fault most people for doing this, but Boyle's a trained journalist. He should know the ethics of communication inside and out.
potatolicious 15y ago
How in the world? There are very clear laws and precedents that have hit the court room many times that make this situation very clearcut. Boyle has done nothing illegal - recording anyone in a location where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (a dining room at a Burger King definitely qualifies) is perfectly legal. The use of this imagery is slightly more complex, but in this case there isn't really a case to be made. Non-commercial usage of someone's likeness in a broadcast is very well protected - and it can't be said that Boyle was using this couple's argument for commercial profit. The only place where Boyle could run into trouble is recording on private (aka Burger King's) property. But even then, the laws around that are clear - unless there was clear signage prohibiting recording, or an employee of Burger King instructed him not to record, he's in the clear. Morally? That's a minefield. But legally speaking I just don't see any case.
- vannevar 15y ago
  Boyle has done nothing illegal - recording anyone in a location where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (a dining room at a Burger King definitely qualifies) is perfectly legal. I see a world of difference between a fight in a Burger King and a fight broadcast live over the Internet to thousands of people. The 'expectation of privacy' here doesn't seem as clear-cut as you make it out to be. I don't think you have to be in your own living room to have an expectation of privacy.
  - jahmed 15y ago
    I think this is a result of applying 19th century concepts of privacy to a 21st century world. The rapid leap of technology has outpaced our notions of privacy and ethics. Think about this situation from the point of view of someone born in 2011 and their response might be completely different. Society needs to start thinking about what we need to move forward and stop shackling ourselves with ideas that are hopelessly outdated.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    The expectation of privacy is not "internet" or "not internet", it's "public place" or "not public place".

darklajid 15y ago

I didn't downvote you, but - how? And why? Can a conversation that is forced upon other people (in a different setting I could imagine that guests in that BK complain about the couple shouting) still be considered private?

vannevar 15y ago
Downvoters aside, it isn't at all out of the question. From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Sections.htm http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Secti... : "One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. " (emphasis added)
- tedunangst 15y ago
  I have a hard time believing that the tweeter intruded into the couple's business. If anything, the couple intruded into his solitude.
zecho 15y ago
I don't think it's privacy that's the issue here, rather the degree of privacy. By live blogging the ordeal, it unwittingly went from an argument in a Burger King in front of a few people to an argument broadcast on the Internet to thousands. I don't think it's illegal and I probably wouldn't fault most people for doing this, but Boyle's a trained journalist. He should know the ethics of communication inside and out.

potatolicious 15y ago

How in the world? There are very clear laws and precedents that have hit the court room many times that make this situation very clearcut. Boyle has done nothing illegal - recording anyone in a location where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (a dining room at a Burger King definitely qualifies) is perfectly legal. The use of this imagery is slightly more complex, but in this case there isn't really a case to be made. Non-commercial usage of someone's likeness in a broadcast is very well protected - and it can't be said that Boyle was using this couple's argument for commercial profit. The only place where Boyle could run into trouble is recording on private (aka Burger King's) property. But even then, the laws around that are clear - unless there was clear signage prohibiting recording, or an employee of Burger King instructed him not to record, he's in the clear. Morally? That's a minefield. But legally speaking I just don't see any case.

vannevar 15y ago
Boyle has done nothing illegal - recording anyone in a location where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (a dining room at a Burger King definitely qualifies) is perfectly legal. I see a world of difference between a fight in a Burger King and a fight broadcast live over the Internet to thousands of people. The 'expectation of privacy' here doesn't seem as clear-cut as you make it out to be. I don't think you have to be in your own living room to have an expectation of privacy.
- jahmed 15y ago
  I think this is a result of applying 19th century concepts of privacy to a 21st century world. The rapid leap of technology has outpaced our notions of privacy and ethics. Think about this situation from the point of view of someone born in 2011 and their response might be completely different. Society needs to start thinking about what we need to move forward and stop shackling ourselves with ideas that are hopelessly outdated.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  The expectation of privacy is not "internet" or "not internet", it's "public place" or "not public place".