you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Apart from the fact that this is just a massive Big Brother move, it's also so easy to abuse. Imagine a psycho ex decides you need to suffer forever. All they need to do is email you a photo. Your phone downloads it automatically. You don't even need to open it and look at the email, let alone the attachment - and all of a sudden you've got the police knocking down your door. Even if you manage to clear it up, you're now on a list somewhere until you die.

[–]StrategicTactic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is far worse than that. If you post some wrongthink on social media, now they have a means to conduct a raid on you and your property without any need to go through the court. All they would need is to say "our software indicated he had illicit images". The 4th amendment died long ago with the Patriot Act, but this just nails the coffin shut. Even if you don't have an iphone, what is to stop them from getting one in your name?

[–]StrategicTactic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just to follow up with a brief excerpt:

Does one have the right to eavesdrop on one’s own property? It is a hot summer evening, and the house that I own has no air conditioning. I therefore park myself outdoors under one of the eaves and hope that a breeze will supply some relief from the heat. While there, I overhear a conversation that takes place in my living room: the windows of the living room are open, because the occupants also are hoping for a breeze. Have I violated the right to privacy of the living room’s occupants? It is possible that the occupants did not want me to hear what was being said, but the space underneath the eave where I parked my body belonged to me, and parking myself there violated no one else’s right: I was using property that was rightfully mine in the manner that I saw fit. If the occupants of the living room had not wanted me to hear the conversation, they could have closed the windows (actually, because I owned the windows, the occupants would have needed my permission to open or close them).

Now let us consider the case of the eavesdropper who eavesdrops on someone else’s property. An eavesdropper parks himself without my permission under one of the eaves of my house, and he overhears some of the conversation of the parties inside the house. The fact that he overhears a conversation is beside the point. The eavesdropper has violated my right to property, because he is using my property without my consent, and that violation would have occurred even had he not overheard the conversation—even if there had been no conversation. What the second eavesdropper is guilty of is not violating someone else’s right to privacy; he is guilty of trespass, which itself is a form of theft. A right to privacy either is subsumed under the right to property, or it simply does not exist.