4 ms·
More clearly (title is partially misleading): > The Seattle-based appellate judge ruled that the practice [of recording and intercepting customers' private tex
by mdp2021 3y ago
More clearly (title is partially misleading):
> The Seattle-based appellate judge ruled that the practice [of recording and intercepting customers' private text messages and mobile phone call logs] does not meet the threshold for an illegal privacy violation under [Washington] state law
--
Now since the argument seems to have been that
> the interception and recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act's standard that a plaintiff must prove that "his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation" has been threatened
one wonders what juridical hook the judge would have found to determine a breach of rights if the plaintiff took the judge's personal assistant and started browsing its contents.
- repelsteeltje 3y ago> one wonders what juridical hook the judge would have found to determine a breach of rights if the plaintiff took the judges' personal assistant and started browsing its contents. This line of arguing seems so strong and obvious is many other cases too. Like whenever politicians talk about a "golden key" to spy upon encrypted data — just ask them to demonstrate how that would work on their device. Show us. Practically. Here. Right now.
- nabla9 3y agoJudges interpret the law based on arguments. Plaintiffs made their argument based on WPA (it's just consumer protection law). The ruling was: "a bare violation of the WPA is insufficient to satisfy the statutory injury requirement."