Jury selection to begin in Erin Andrews' nude-videos lawsuit

[What Would Jesus Do?]

In this situation you are advising a person not to be naked in a hotel that you have paid for the right to be alone in and be protected from the outside ... not a person standing naked at a subway terminal.

Harm vs. remedy? Weird that you somehow modify it with "celebrity", why should a celebrity have any different status? Why would peeping on Jane Seymour in her bedroom be any different than peeping on WWJD in his? What is the harm? I'm still not sure where you are serious. The protection of privacy is one of the highest priorities that I believe we have. So much so that we are a people hell-bent on ownership of individual property in order to protect that privacy. We are not a shared-culture like some others. If there is no harm in a celebrities private pictures, there is no harm in ANY privacy case, not medical records, not academic records, not voting records, nothing. They are literally laid bare for all to see.

Of course the renting of the nearby rooms isn't wrong nor is there any reasonable allegation that it is. That is the strangest of straw men I've seen you throw out. It is evidence of intent, but nothing more.

I'm still not sure why you think peep holes, or altering peepholes is only "arguably" crossing the line. Also, I'm not sure why you'd even approve of heat imaging of a person in privacy, or anything of the like. For a person that complains about the NSA/CIA/government surveillance, this is an extraordinary position to take, that the government can't do something that you, apparently, readily believe the general public should be allowed to.

To make comparison:

This would be outlawing searches by government under the 4th Amendment, yet affirmatively allowing private citizens to enter other people's property whenever they wish, because they can't "own" space. I don't think you can reasonably restrict the government from doing something you believe everyone can do otherwise. That wasn't why the 4th was adopted, it was because we didn't want the government to do things we couldn't do ourselves, a legitimate fear when discussing government.

The rest of this you are getting too snippy and argumentative. I stopped kidding around so we could have a real conversation, but you don't seem to have recognized that.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If I broadcast my electrons openly, then I'm inviting people to harvest them.

If I encrypt them, not so much. But if they're out there, and someone wants to go to the trouble, they're free to do so.

If I'm paying for a private network connection and taking reasonable precautions, then I have some expectation of privacy. But how much?

We have laws that prevent some of these things not just because we don't like them but because in the absence of laws they will happen. Our political philosophy says we shouldn't let our government snoop too much. But oddly it lets corporations and individuals do things we don't want government to do. It's an abuse of power question.

This is absurd, I can find no other description of it.

By this opinion you are on board with: Unfettered opening of other people's mail, it can't be private if sent out publicly, placed in a public receptacle, etc. No email, or electronic document except kept entirely in-house can be legally protected, which would include all legal, medical, and educational documents. Emails are 100% fair game according to thsi.

You are just wrong on your last assertion. What do we allow corporations and individuals to do (legally) that the government can't? A person can not, without permission "snoop" on another person's communications, and neither can the government.

 

[theIowaHawk]

The rest of this you are getting too snippy and argumentative. I stopped kidding around so we could have a real conversation, but you don't seem to have recognized that.

That is the frightening part, that what you posted was supposed to be serious. Either you haven't thought it through or you are trolling, I'm not sure which.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You are changing the definition of privacy to fit your claim.

Two people discussing something in public is not private, which is why you probably can, in fact, record them or take their picture.

A person talking to their doctor in the doctor's office being recorded by the guy outside the window would be the real analogy for "freedom to invade privacy" and nobody is on board with that absurdity.

Setting up an object that can ring with outside stimuli (phone, doorbell) is not an invasion of privacy, except one you set up for yourself. You have gone well beyond actually discussing what you posted, inventing this new category as a strawman.

Actually, you're the one changing definitions. If you and I have a private conversation in a public place, it's still a private conversation. The only thing that's changed from having it in a secluded space is the expectation of privacy - not whether it's a private conversation.

 

[JRHawk2003]

The images are blurry and not that great. Nothing like the phone hack ones that produced Kate Upton and Jennifer Lawrence pics in detail.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This is absurd, I can find no other description of it.

By this opinion you are on board with: Unfettered opening of other people's mail, it can't be private if sent out publicly, placed in a public receptacle, etc. No email, or electronic document except kept entirely in-house can be legally protected, which would include all legal, medical, and educational documents. Emails are 100% fair game according to thsi.

You are just wrong on your last assertion. What do we allow corporations and individuals to do (legally) that the government can't? A person can not, without permission "snoop" on another person's communications, and neither can the government.

Opening a letter is like breaking and entering.

But if the letter is open and lying on the table, I'm free to look at it. I might not, feeling it's none of my business, but I am free to do so.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Actually, you're the one changing definitions. If you and I have a private conversation in a public place, it's still a private conversation. The only thing that's changed from having it in a secluded space is the expectation of privacy - not whether it's a private conversation.

No, it is not. You can't privately do something in public ... that was your very first argument on this. That a person can't be "privately naked" in a place that the public can view.

If you want to change, modify, invent definitions to fit your approach, have at it, just make sure you label it as such to begin with.

Two people talking at a public restaurant can be eavesdropped on by anybody and everybody, their photo can be taken, even by the government. It isn't private. One may believe what they are saying is private because they are trying to be quiet, careful and keep it such, but that doesn't change the definition of privacy.

The most obvious, plain definition:

pri·va·cy
ˈprīvəsē/
noun
noun: privacy
the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That is the frightening part, that what you posted was supposed to be serious. Either you haven't thought it through or you are trolling, I'm not sure which.

That's your problem.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Opening a letter is like breaking and entering.

But if the letter is open and lying on the table, I'm free to look at it. I might not, feeling it's none of my business, but I am free to do so.

Following your thesis, there can be no "breaking and entering" because atoms can't be owned.

Again, you change the scenario to fit your point. A letter can't be "open and lying on the table" if you have to break in to see it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No, it is not. You can't privately do something in public ... that was your very first argument on this. That a person can't be "privately naked" in a place that the public can view.

If you want to change, modify, invent definitions to fit your approach, have at it, just make sure you label it as such to begin with.

Two people talking at a public restaurant can be eavesdropped on by anybody and everybody, their photo can be taken, even by the government. It isn't private. One may believe what they are saying is private because they are trying to be quiet, careful and keep it such, but that doesn't change the definition of privacy.

The most obvious, plain definition:

pri·va·cy
ˈprīvəsē/
noun
noun: privacy
the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.

Oh great another person who can't discuss and has to turn to carefully chosen scripture.

Do you really think that's the only meaning of "privacy."

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Following your thesis, there can be no "breaking and entering" because atoms can't be owned.

Again, you change the scenario to fit your point. A letter can't be "open and lying on the table" if you have to break in to see it.

I never said atoms can't be owned. Try to keep up.

 

[theIowaHawk]

To put it as simply as possible, in your theory WWJD, a person who invents technology that combines electromagnetic/thermal/radio/whatever and combines it to make "X-Ray Vision" a reality, there would be nothing that could or should be done to stop it. Walls would become obsolete, and you seem to be on board with that, all because a person is giving off the element that is being detected.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Oh great another person who can't discuss and has to turn to carefully chosen scripture.

Do you really think that's the only meaning of "privacy."

No, its the only meaning of privacy that matters in this entire thread. What other one would matter? This is a thread where we have been discussing a person taking photos/video through a peephole (that they altered) in to a private hotel room.

Why would a definition so broad that it includes sitting at a table in public be relevant?


What do you want, an agreement that someone sitting naked at a restaurant table could be photographed, no matter how "private" their conversation is?

 

[JRHawk2003]

So sorry to interrupt your lame argument, but knowing litigation and how insurance companies work....I am surprised there isn't some sort of settlement here. These things rarely go to trial.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I never said atoms can't be owned. Try to keep up.

Yes, you are by extension, and you know that. If "photons" can't be owned, why would anything else at that scientific level?

 

[The Tradition]

The images are blurry and not that great. Nothing like the phone hack ones that produced Kate Upton and Jennifer Lawrence pics in detail.

Who let all those monkeys in the room?