3 ms·

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 q

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needs to start thinking about what we need to move forward and stop shackling ourselves with ideas that are hopelessly outdated.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".
vannevar 15y ago
I think this is a result of applying 19th century concepts of privacy to a 21st century world. I don't disagree. Privacy case law has mostly evolved in the context of large corporate or government entities violating the privacy of individuals, because those entities were the ones with access to surveillance and broadcasting or publishing technologies. Now everyone is a broadcaster, and their editorial discretion (and morals) will vary.
potatolicious 15y ago
The "expectation of privacy" is a legal concept, not a lay concept. We could argue about whether or not the couple should have had an expectation to privacy till the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. So "lawyer up" indeed.
- vannevar 15y ago
  It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. Just to clarify, is that a legal opinion? I fully understand it's a legal question. But a civil suit for intentionally disseminating embarrassing information is very different from a Fourth Amendment case. This is a case where someone intentionally broadcast to the Internet a couple's marital issues (otherwise known only to a handful of people in a restaurant) with the apparent intent to ridicule them. You still haven't convinced me Boyle is 'in the clear'.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    I am not a lawyer, but I am a photographer who has deeply studied this issue for my own protection. This is, and continues, to be a hot-button topic amongst photographers, so I would consider myself to be more informed than most people need to be. So no, this is not a professional legal opinion, but it's one based on solid information about the laws of the United States. If Boyle is to be sued, it won't be over anything related to use of likeness. More likely it will come from a defamation or libel angle - but that's entirely separate to the issue of privacy in public spaces.
    - vannevar 15y ago
      "...it won't be over anything related to use of likeness." I'd I agree with you there: it's not the likeness that's the problem. It's the wide dissemination of embarrassing private information without any apparent legitimate informative purpose. Like an upskirt photo, the fact that many people in the restaurant might have the same view doesn't mean it's OK to tweet the image to the world at large.
      - potatolicious 15y ago
        I agree - but this really is just a sign of the times. Technology has made our previous implicit social contract re: privacy somewhat out of date. We need to (and we are, naturally) developing new codes of conduct in its place. Incidents like this will push this evolutionary process in the right direction. Not sure why we need to get involved, legally. This seems like one of those things where we really can just let it regulate itself. I am fairly certain Mr. Boyle is receiving his lesson in respecting boundaries as we speak.

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".

vannevar 15y ago

I think this is a result of applying 19th century concepts of privacy to a 21st century world. I don't disagree. Privacy case law has mostly evolved in the context of large corporate or government entities violating the privacy of individuals, because those entities were the ones with access to surveillance and broadcasting or publishing technologies. Now everyone is a broadcaster, and their editorial discretion (and morals) will vary.

potatolicious 15y ago

The "expectation of privacy" is a legal concept, not a lay concept. We could argue about whether or not the couple should have had an expectation to privacy till the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. So "lawyer up" indeed.

vannevar 15y ago
It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. Just to clarify, is that a legal opinion? I fully understand it's a legal question. But a civil suit for intentionally disseminating embarrassing information is very different from a Fourth Amendment case. This is a case where someone intentionally broadcast to the Internet a couple's marital issues (otherwise known only to a handful of people in a restaurant) with the apparent intent to ridicule them. You still haven't convinced me Boyle is 'in the clear'.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but I am a photographer who has deeply studied this issue for my own protection. This is, and continues, to be a hot-button topic amongst photographers, so I would consider myself to be more informed than most people need to be. So no, this is not a professional legal opinion, but it's one based on solid information about the laws of the United States. If Boyle is to be sued, it won't be over anything related to use of likeness. More likely it will come from a defamation or libel angle - but that's entirely separate to the issue of privacy in public spaces.
  - vannevar 15y ago
    "...it won't be over anything related to use of likeness." I'd I agree with you there: it's not the likeness that's the problem. It's the wide dissemination of embarrassing private information without any apparent legitimate informative purpose. Like an upskirt photo, the fact that many people in the restaurant might have the same view doesn't mean it's OK to tweet the image to the world at large.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      I agree - but this really is just a sign of the times. Technology has made our previous implicit social contract re: privacy somewhat out of date. We need to (and we are, naturally) developing new codes of conduct in its place. Incidents like this will push this evolutionary process in the right direction. Not sure why we need to get involved, legally. This seems like one of those things where we really can just let it regulate itself. I am fairly certain Mr. Boyle is receiving his lesson in respecting boundaries as we speak.