More Weirdness

Damocles said:
Not on their property. You do not have a right to use their computer except in the way that they proscribe.
Click to expand...

Just as those girls "had no right to use his property except in the way that he prescribed"; even if it can obviously be determined that they would've expected privacy. Just as if I were granted an office by my employer I would expect privacy. If the employer wants to invade it he should at least not explicitly lull me into believing that I do have privacy - when in any rational experience any normal person would've expected society, barring schizophrenics and the paranoid. Damo, if you're employer did that to you, I'm certain you could sue his ass and win. Find me a lawyer who wouldn't jump at a case like that.
 
Watermark said:
1. The place is not public. It is a closed office. The people assumed they were alone. The principal was the boss of the place and may have very well told people to stay out. Call it "unreasonable" for him to expect privacy if you will, but you are just being silly.

2. I have no right to place a videocamera in my principals office. If I persisted in doing so I would fully expect to be put in prison or kicked out of school.

3. OK, someone (who may very well have been a fucking sicko criminal, who knows), walks into the school and just randomly places a video camera in there? He's violating so many laws it makes me head spin.
Click to expand...
1. The office is a public place. Like a judge's office. That they can use it to conduct business doesn't make it less so. You keep missing that you too can have access to that school. Make an appointment.

2. That would be based on school policy. However the assumption that you had broken a law would be the differences in state's laws. In this case, whomever placed the camera isn't being looked at for breaking a law. The likelihood is because no law was broken.

3. You assume it was random. There is no evidence that it was a random act and that the person who placed the camera didn't have legal access to the room. You also assume laws were broken when placing the camera. Once again, what is the school policy on videotaping people in public places? Do they video students in the halls? Is this a camera placed there regularly for security purposes? So far you have less answers and far more assumptions than any other person in speaking about this story.
 
Watermark said:
Just as those girls "had no right to use his property except in the way that he prescribed"; even if it can obviously be determined that they would've expected privacy. Just as if I were granted an office by my employer I would expect privacy. If the employer wants to invade it he should at least not explicitly lull me into believing that I do have privacy - when in any rational experience any normal person would've expected society, barring schizophrenics and the paranoid. Damo, if you're employer did that to you, I'm certain you could sue his ass and win. Find me a lawyer who wouldn't jump at a case like that.
Click to expand...
You cannot expect privacy in a public building, you can in a private home. Also, as I stated other laws were broken. The girls were underage and could not consent to such pictures.

Had the girls been in a place where it would be unreasonable to expect privacy, as in areas accessible to the public in a school as a principle's office is per appointment, then they would have no legal action that they could take other than against the man for taping them underage.

You are attempting to argue ethics, not law. It would be unethical to take a video of people unsuspecting in public places, but it would not violate the law.
 
Watermark said:
Just as those girls "had no right to use his property except in the way that he prescribed"; even if it can obviously be determined that they would've expected privacy. Just as if I were granted an office by my employer I would expect privacy. If the employer wants to invade it he should at least not explicitly lull me into believing that I do have privacy - when in any rational experience any normal person would've expected society, barring schizophrenics and the paranoid. Damo, if you're employer did that to you, I'm certain you could sue his ass and win. Find me a lawyer who wouldn't jump at a case like that.
Click to expand...

Ohh many lawyers can be found that would not want that case, but there are a lot of republican err slimey ones out there ;)
 
Damocles said:
You cannot expect privacy in a public building, you can in a private home. Also, as I stated other laws were broken. The girls were underage and could not consent to such pictures.

Had the girls been in a place where it would be unreasonable to expect privacy, as in areas accessible to the public in a school as a principle's office is per appointment, then they would have no legal action that they could take other than against the man for taping them underage.

You are attempting to argue ethics, not law. It would be unethical to take a video of people unsuspecting in public places, but it would not violate the law.
Click to expand...

Employers can absolutely take vidoe of their workplace without permission from those videoed. This has already been thru the courts.
And the govt can do it as well, this too has been cleared by the courts.
 
uscitizen said:
Employers can absolutely take vidoe of their workplace without permission from those videoed. This has already been thru the courts.
And the govt can do it as well, this too has been cleared by the courts.
Click to expand...
Which has been my point... Thanks there, US...
 
Damocles said:
You cannot expect privacy in a public building, you can in a private home. Also, as I stated other laws were broken. The girls were underage and could not consent to such pictures.

Had the girls been in a place where it would be unreasonable to expect privacy, as in areas accessible to the public in a school as a principle's office is per appointment, then they would have no legal action that they could take other than against the man for taping them underage.

You are attempting to argue ethics, not law. It would be unethical to take a video of people unsuspecting in public places, but it would not violate the law.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of upskirting? I'm pretty certain that's not legal, but the people there "don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy".

Also, I once read a newstory of a Hooters manager who was arrested because he was taking videos of his girls as they unknowingly dressed in the building. So there is quite obviously some law against voyeurism like that.
 
Watermark said:
Have you ever heard of upskirting? I'm pretty certain that's not legal, but the people there "don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy".

Also, I once read a newstory of a Hooters manager who was arrested because he was taking videos of his girls as they unknowingly dressed in the building. So there is quite obviously some law against voyeurism like that.
Click to expand...
They have to make it illegal. Specifying it is necessary. In many places it is still not illegal to "upskirt". Often laws lag behind reality.

In order to make it illegal it is necessary to make a law specifying that as a privacy issue.

In this case there is certain people who have rights to tape these people. I will one more time ask you. What is the schools policy on videotaping those people in a public area? That is the issue here.

Look at what uscit posted, courts have ruled on these issues. It is not necessarily illegal to videotape them while they are on public property. It depends on what the laws specifically state in that particular state and municipality.

I am not saying that there is no way it is illegal, just that it is very unlikely as nobody in any position to do anything has even suggested going after those who made the tape in any legal fashion. This suggests to me that it is likely legal to videotape people in public places in that state. Courts have ruled that this is a public place with limited physical access requirements that are necessary for security. It means that videotaping, if in public, is legal in these circumstances.

You may think it unethical, but you can't just apply laws willy-nilly and ignore previous court rulings on the subject because you don't like the result.
 
uscitizen said:
Employers can absolutely take vidoe of their workplace without permission from those videoed. This has already been thru the courts.
And the govt can do it as well, this too has been cleared by the courts.
Click to expand...

Courts are schizophrenic...

It's alright to watch you're employees picking their boogers without their knowledge but it's not alright to watch them dressing? They have double standards.
 
Damocles said:
They have to make it illegal. Specifying it was necessary. In many places it is still not illegal to "upskirt".
Click to expand...

So, Damo, are you arguing that a judge would allow people to have pornographic videos taken of their own body against their will, or are you arguing that it's right?

I have a right to my private actions whenever I do them in a plcae I've been lulled into believing I'm not being observed, in my opinion.
 
Watermark said:
Courts are schizophrenic...

It's alright to watch you're employees picking their boogers without their knowledge but it's not alright to watch them dressing? They have double standards.
Click to expand...
It depends on where they are dressing.
 
Watermark said:
So, Damo, are you arguing that a judge would allow people to have pornographic videos taken of their own body against their will, or are you arguing that it's right?

I have a right to my private actions whenever I do them in a plcae I've been lulled into believing I'm not being observed, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I am arguing that they have in fact rejected cases against upskirting when there were no laws against it. And also stating a fact that in many places they still haven't caught up to that reality and made that law.

Now, courts have even ruled that if you are in a dorm and leave the curtains open and people take pictures, it is still legal in certain circumstances.

So, yes. Depending on the laws of the municipality or state courts will sometimes rule that way.
 
I have a right to my private actions whenever I do them in a plcae I've been lulled into believing I'm not being observed, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

And in certain circumstances some people have a right to videotape your "private" actions if you fool yourself into believing in privacy while in a public place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top