[kwkarth]

electronic_privacy_rights_gone_in_a_millisecond
What are the courts thinking????

Privacy rights being eroded

 

[appophylite]

That is by far, one of the most ridiculous court rulings that has been brought forward in recent times. How that decision was validated is beyond belief.

 

[ClieOS]

or electronic_privacy_rights_available_only_after_10_ millisecond.

So if the server is one of those ancient P3 rig, can we tell the judge that it takes more than several milliseconds for transmission therefore should be considered as 'intercepted'?

Few months ago, a Taiwan court's judge ruled in favour of a man who groped a woman because 'less than ten second of touching another person's body isn't enough to cause any permanent damage (of mental and physical).'

 

[G-man]

I am sorry, but that is just simply ridiculous.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Few months ago, a Taiwan court's judge ruled in favour of a man who groped a woman because 'less than ten second of touching another person's body isn't enough to cause any permanent damage (of mental and physical).'

OK, to make this work when i get off the plane I'm going to need exactly 13 women to stand in a line with their shirts already untucked. The Taiwan police are of course welcome to come with a stopwatch to make sure nothing illegal happens.

 

[Blitzula]

That decision from a lower court last year is currently being reviewed...

washingtonpost.com

Courts make bad decisions all the time...the impact depends on if they're upheld or not.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula /img/forum/go_quote.gif Courts make bad decisions all the time...the impact depends on if they're upheld or not.

Yeah, and to respond to R&R Ninja: After the ruling, there are actually quite a few reported cases of perverts telling their victims there is nothing they can do because they were touched less than 10 seconds. Oh, did I mentioned the judge is a she?

Courts make bad decisions all the time, but some are just plainly ridiculous.

 

[kwkarth]

Too bad the Judges can't be fined for contempt of common sense. What a waste of taxpayer money.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Too bad the Judges can't be fined for contempt of common sense. What a waste of taxpayer money.

It's a very technical issue which the judges may not be familiar with. When it's translated into the sort of form that the judges would understand and conflated with precedent in a similar but crucially different area, I'm not surprised at all that they would have botched this one. There's also the issue of the quality of legal representation on both sides. In **AA vs Anyone cases, it's usually severely tilted in favor of the **AA as they have the initiative and won't sue anyone that will give them a good fight in court.

 

[synaesthetic]

This is no different than a police officer obtaining an item of evidence from a suspect's place of business without a warrant. Actually, it's even worse, because it was taken by someone with absolutely no connection to an LEO!

This "disgruntled employee" stole information from his company (which is industrial espionage last I checked) and he should be prosecuted for that, and the MPAA should be cited for knowingly receiving stolen property.

 

[DanTheMiataMan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif electronic_privacy_rights_gone_in_a_millisecond What are the courts thinking???? Privacy rights being eroded

Wow this is about as bad as Net Neutrality.

btw

Oregon rocks =P

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a very technical issue which the judges may not be familiar with. When it's translated into the sort of form that the judges would understand and conflated with precedent in a similar but crucially different area, I'm not surprised at all that they would have botched this one. There's also the issue of the quality of legal representation on both sides. In **AA vs Anyone cases, it's usually severely tilted in favor of the **AA as they have the initiative and won't sue anyone that will give them a good fight in court.

Seems to me, in my blissful ignorance that they wouldn't even hear the case until they'd done appropriate discovery to properly understand the issue.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif This "disgruntled employee" stole information from his company (which is industrial espionage last I checked) and he should be prosecuted for that, and the MPAA should be cited for knowingly receiving stolen property.

To have legal protection, the information has to be secret, have commercial value because it's secret, and the owner has to take reasonable steps to keep it secret. The court ruled that it wasn't industrial espionage since the information didn't have commercial value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Seems to me, in my blissful ignorance that they wouldn't even hear the case until they'd done appropriate discovery to properly understand the issue.

They don't always find what they should. That's how the Supreme Court missed a recent alteration to the UCMJ that provided for the death penalty in child rape cases when they heard Kennedy vs Louisiana. The Supreme Court didn't find it and neither side brought it up.

Same thing happened in US vs Miller. The Supreme Court really botched that one since Miller died and the only side to present their case was the US gov't. For obvious reasons, they elected not to shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is no different than a police officer obtaining an item of evidence from a suspect's place of business without a warrant. Actually, it's even worse, because it was taken by someone with absolutely no connection to an LEO! This "disgruntled employee" stole information from his company (which is industrial espionage last I checked) and he should be prosecuted for that, and the MPAA should be cited for knowingly receiving stolen property.

Now this makes sense to me.

 

[Luminette]

bad news