Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TTOSBT who wrote (133445)	6/18/1999 5:25:00 PM
From: Matt Kaarlela	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

OT. TTOSBT It is this "right to privacy at all cost" mentality that has completely undermined criminal justice. Would you prefer the guy with the child pornography had been found innocent because his "right to privacy" was violated? If so, I respectfully disagree... On a happier note, Dell is looking good. Would love to see 40 soon!

To: TTOSBT who wrote (133445)	6/18/1999 7:56:00 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

OT Privacy and Law. TTOSBT, I think that you may be co-mingling separate issues, ethics and law along with a "romantic" notion of privacy. We have far less privacy than most believe; example: you drop off a prescription at the pharmacy and the pharmacy of course makes a record. The pharmacy then sells "your" pharmaceutical records violating your privacy? No. The records are the property of the pharmacy. The same applies to "your" credit record, what you purchase in the grocery store and "your" medical records. I think you'll find that privacy laws generally relate to the information that the government has related to you and it [the government] is prohibited by law from releasing that information outside of the government. As many of these stories go, we know much less than we think we know. Most importantly, we don't know whether the GREAT STATE OF TEXAS (Sorry, I've been listening to Congressional hearings a lot the last couple of days) has any law governing what the person at tech support did or whether the hypothetical case you describe has a governing law in the the hypothetical state where the employer of the baby sitter resides. In the case of Texas, probably the easiest thing to do would be for someone to call the Attorney General's office in Texas to determine whether there is a governing law, if one is so inclined. I don't believe that there is a federal law that would govern either of the two cases. Suppose there is no governing law(s), then it is purely a matter of ethics and the individual and DELL for that matter may chose to do whatever they wish, and there is no legal issue. Suppose there is a governing law and we'll assume that the law was violated by the persons cited. That in no way affects the constitutionality or validity of the prosecution. The question remains whether the person(s) should be prosecuted and since we're throwing in hypotheticals....suppose you're strolling around your neighborhood and you hear some grunting and thumping from behind a fence...you peer over the fence and see a person being raped...you jump the fence and assault the attacker who happens to be the resident, you've violated his privacy (though I don't know if there is a governing law);you've trespassed [which I suppose is a privacy violation but not usually coined as such]; and you have committed an assault....but stopped the crime. You have committed two crimes at least...but I'll suggest to you would be hard pressed to find a prosecutor that would indict or a jury that would convict. Prosecutorial discretion. Back to the specific case. Again, let's suppose that there is some governing law. We also don't know what drew the technician (specifically) to the icon...I have to turn to a different example which may or may not be applicable but does illustrate the point. If the police come to your house....because you have complained about noisy parties from your neighbors...and you leave a bag of crack on the table...the police see it and haul you off. There was no valid warrant but it was a legal search and seizure...So what drew the attention of the technician? Was is something that a reasonable person might expect would indicate an illegal activity and consequently encourage the individual to look? I court might very well rule that the laptop owner should have expected that a "normal" person would look and you in effect sacrificed your right to privacy...a lot of research on this point is needed. My guess is that there is no governing privacy law in either case, i.e., the technician or the babysitter and no privacy law was violated. If the babysitter takes the "mayor" video and puts it on the web and charges $5 to access the site (an example of the gain you've suggested); you could probably have her charged with theft but that's about it. Suppose the video was of a sex foursome and published on the web; you could probably have her charged with theft and get a restraining order...but you couldn't even file a libel suit. But you could fire her as a babysitter. I'm not an attorney, nor do I have any training as such but there has to be an attorney of criminal law somewhere on this thread who could comment in a more knowledgable manner than I. As an aside, I have a vague memory that the concept/term of "right to privacy", was coined in the early 60's with a court decision on something related to abortion. It might be interesting research to read the courts' opinion.... JMHO, Jim