3 ms·

IANAL but I know plenty: US jurisprudence has a primary flaw when comes to privacy: individuals have no rights to most of their own data. Once it is "out ther

by ballard 13y ago

IANAL but I know plenty: US jurisprudence has a primary flaw when comes to privacy: individuals have no rights to most of their own data. Once it is "out there," it's available to be bought and sold without much limitation. A friend is working on a paper in this area to find a way out of this quagmire, but I think it will take a great outrage (ie a heinous crime) to make any progress.

tbrownaw 13y ago
US jurisprudence has a primary flaw when comes to privacy: individuals have no rights to most of their own data. Once it is "out there," it's available to be bought and sold without much limitation. Yes, it would be much more convenient if I could forbid people I don't like (or who don't like me) from ever talking about me. Unauthorized gossip should be illegal even if it doesn't qualify as slander or libel. The law should assist me in maintaining a wall between my public image and my not-deliberately-publicized (but still done somewhat in public) actions.
- ds9 13y ago
  You rightly point out that the idea advocated by ballard, as stated, doesn't distinguish the probably narrower category that he's concerned about. But I think what he meant was probably business data - which is distinguishable from newsworthy information. Yes, there are problems associated with this distinction, but I think it could be formulated well enough to protect both press freedom and privacy in commercial transactions. That said, I think ballard misidentified the problem in another way. The problem is not that "individuals have no rights to most of their own data" in US law - instead the problem is that individuals can be forced to bargain away all their rights to the info in question as a condition of engaging in any ordinary transaction of everyday life.
reeses 13y ago
There's a horrid and eroding legal concept called a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Unfortunately, it is not referred to in the positive in most cases. On the contrary, it is invoked in the negative based on some legal precedent that eliminates that "reasonable expectation."
- lukifer 13y ago
  I've long wondered if there isn't a potential legal hack hiding there: Providers that advertise an expectation of privacy, webmail with a "This is a private message" checkbox, those (generally pointless) email footers that clarify that the message is intended for its recipient only, etc. (IANAL...) Obviously, in the current court system it wouldn't do much good on its own, but it could form the backbone of a single precedent-setting case.

by ballard 13y ago

tbrownaw 13y ago

US jurisprudence has a primary flaw when comes to privacy: individuals have no rights to most of their own data. Once it is "out there," it's available to be bought and sold without much limitation. Yes, it would be much more convenient if I could forbid people I don't like (or who don't like me) from ever talking about me. Unauthorized gossip should be illegal even if it doesn't qualify as slander or libel. The law should assist me in maintaining a wall between my public image and my not-deliberately-publicized (but still done somewhat in public) actions.

ds9 13y ago
You rightly point out that the idea advocated by ballard, as stated, doesn't distinguish the probably narrower category that he's concerned about. But I think what he meant was probably business data - which is distinguishable from newsworthy information. Yes, there are problems associated with this distinction, but I think it could be formulated well enough to protect both press freedom and privacy in commercial transactions. That said, I think ballard misidentified the problem in another way. The problem is not that "individuals have no rights to most of their own data" in US law - instead the problem is that individuals can be forced to bargain away all their rights to the info in question as a condition of engaging in any ordinary transaction of everyday life.

reeses 13y ago

There's a horrid and eroding legal concept called a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Unfortunately, it is not referred to in the positive in most cases. On the contrary, it is invoked in the negative based on some legal precedent that eliminates that "reasonable expectation."

lukifer 13y ago
I've long wondered if there isn't a potential legal hack hiding there: Providers that advertise an expectation of privacy, webmail with a "This is a private message" checkbox, those (generally pointless) email footers that clarify that the message is intended for its recipient only, etc. (IANAL...) Obviously, in the current court system it wouldn't do much good on its own, but it could form the backbone of a single precedent-setting case.