Bob I believe was the first to ask for a debate night. A time where people can get together and discuss current issues. Many people have had their private email debates. It is only as of recent that it occured to me to allow everyone to read or participate by providing a website. So I have gone back to recent emails, and included them below.
A. "Privacy Violations", Dave L. 3/7/01 B. "My pet peeve of the day" Johanna L. 3/28/01 Dave L. 3/9/01, 3/13/01, 3/22/01 Keith R. 3/28/01 Johanna L. 3/7/01, 3/13/01, 3/13/01, 3/22/01 Joe J. 3/28/01
A. Privacy Violations(Dave L. 3/7/01)
There was a case reported on the radio this morning which presents a great "moral dilemma" type situation. Before I tell you about the case, in order not to sway your opinion, I need you to think about and answer the following questions first:1) Is videotaping someone "openly" in _your_ house a violation of the other person's privacy?
2) Is videotaping someone "secretly" in _your_ house a violation of the other person's privacy?
3) Is videotaping someone "openly" in _your_ bedroom in _your_ house a violation of the other person's privacy?
4) Is videotaping someone "secretly" in _your_ bedroom in _your_ house a violation of the other person's privacy?Personally, I think "no" to all of the above questions, because you're in someone else's place of residence. At first I thought "yes" because I wouldn't want someone secretly video-taping me going to the bathroom or something. But, then I thought I most likely wouldn't be in someone's place or doing something in their place if I didn't trust them enough or know them enough to do whatever it is I would do.
Let me know what your thoughts are before I tell you more about the case that makes for a great debate. :)
(Johanna L. 3/7/01)
1) Is videotaping someone "openly" in _your_ house a violation of the other person's privacy?
I would feel it necessary to notify that person that I have a video camara, and it is in use. Some people don't like being recorded or photographed, and out of respect to my friends I would let them know. I would not seek their permission, simply inform them where the camara was, or ask the videographer to avoid filming that individual(s).There is always the situation of a surprise birthday party though. This does conflict with my comment above.
2) Is videotaping someone "secretly" in _your_ house a violation of the other person's privacy?
Yes.3) Is videotaping someone "openly" in _your_ bedroom in _your_ house a violation of the other person's privacy?
Again, I would be sure that the individual knows that there is a video device and be sure that they give their consent. I would be sure that if consent is given, to again be sure to inform them and have them consent on camara.4) Is videotaping someone "secretly" in _your_ bedroom in _your_ house a violation of the other person's privacy?
Yes.The questions are phrased to ask if you feel it is a violation for you to commit these acts to an individual, in your place of residence. Being that it is my private home those people I allow into are friends, coworkers, or family. I respect all of these people, and out of respect I would be sure that they all have been informed. I would not seek their consent, but inform them.
If the situation arose that I wanted to publish the material (americas funniest videos, my website) I would be sure to inform people that I was doing so. If the specific event I am posting has a main character(s) involved I would be sure to seek their approval prior to publishing.
>>"At first I thought "yes" because I wouldn't want someone secretly video-taping me going to the bathroom or something. But, then I thought I most likely wouldn't be in someone's place or doing something in their place if I didn't trust them enough or know them enough to do whatever it is I would do." - Dave L.
We would all like to think we know our friends well enough that they would never betray us in this manner. Knowing that there are many personality differences in people, I recognize that there are free spirits who wouldn't mind themselves being recorded, and there wouldn't think twice of doing it to another individual. It would not necessarily be with malicious intent.
Example: The dinner party I had at my house the other evening. There were MANY people there. Any of them may have chosen as a practical joke to have a camara in the bathroom photographing/recording people. They may have used it only to show that that party, or one in the future.
Example: Roommates/friends/others on a camping/ski/beach trip may see a couple and take pictures of them. They may even sneak into the room with a camara and yell surprise. Again, there is no malicious intent. They are just being free spirits, but I would consider it an invasion.
There may not be a malicious intent, but the situation/event/mood of the person being recorded/photographed is what should be taken into consideration. The same friend may be willing to have intimate pictures taken with a person, but would they want photos of a group skinny dip escapade taken?
(Dave L. 3/9/01)
Here's the scoop with the trial. A verdict ruled in favor of 3 women, awarding that a guy pay them each $350,000 for mental distress.What had happened is he met the women at a bar, brought them home, had sex with them in his bedroom, and recorded the acts without them knowing about it. How they found out I don't know.
Now, my personal opinion on this is if they went and had a one-night stand with this guy, what do they expect? They got what they deserved. If they're going to have sex with someone without getting to know them first, those ladies are certainly lucky nothing worse happened, like maybe contracting HIV.
The other issue I swing back and forth on is the privacy issue. Sure, you shouldn't have to worry about being recorded in someone else's house. However, there are hidden cameras all over the place in the world that you're never told about. What difference does it make if those hidden cameras are in your place of work, dressing room of a department store, on a
security agent to catch a criminal, or part of an under cover investigation by a tv station?Are all those people's "rights" violated too? If not, why not? Why is it ok for a hidden camera to be in dressing rooms to "see if anyone's stealing anything" and yet it not be ok for someone to have a hidden camera in their house watching you in the
kitchen?Also here's one too...did you hear about the young woman who tried to break into her neighbor's house for some food? Her hand was cut off in a makeshift guillotine; the neighbor said his house was being broke into and things were stolen (possibly by her!?!) and he felt he had to do something to protect himself and his home. He reported the thefts to the police, but they were
unable to catch the criminal. Should she be fined for breaking/entering, or did he take extreme measures?http://news.excite.com/news/r/010306/08/odd-guillotine-dc
(Johanna L. 3/13/01)
First an overview of what I first considered when you sent me the questions:
--------------------------
After looking at your questions, I believe this fall under the same law of voice recording. It is unlawful to record a person without their knowledge. I believe in cases where you will use it for legal purposes that is has to be with their knowledge and consent. This is true for situations on the phone, residential or public locations.Due to the fact that security camaras are used in many places, it could be decided that video does not fall under the same rules as voice recording. I am not sure whether places that do video security are required to legally post notification that you are being recorded. Which then may be imposed on private residences as well, so that people with video security/webcams/etc may be required to post signs at the enterance of their property disclosing the use of video equipment.
This brings up the issue also of photography. It is well known that there have been many cases were upset individuals have published photos of previous relations. There are also cases where roomates and other people have been able to aquire photos or videos of individuals and publish them without consent.
I believe that legally the cases have been treated independantly. In situations where individuals provided the photos/video to a person, it then becomes the property of the receiver, and they are intitled to do as they please. Yet, there are other cases where it has been deemed invasion of privacy because the materials are of personal nature and were provided in confidence, and consent of the individual was not seeked.
It comes down in part to the individual having to know their friends, and trust them. There are always situations where you may have housemates that you trust, and may betray that trust, or a previous sweetheart may be hurt and act maliciously.
Personally, if the person has a sign at the door that they record everything in their home, then I won't be using the bathroom! :)
Now, specifically based on the ARTICLE:
-------------------------------
In todays society (as in the past) people do look for instant gratification in many facets of their lives. The does not exclude people who are looking for physical companionship, even in a single occurance. This is definately not a wise choice, as hitchhiking is not either. People are putting themselves in a vulnerable situation because they are trusting (or just self destructive) and make careless mistakes in judgement situations.This can be in situations like the one outlined in the court ruling. Other examples are of women who dress provocatively, those who are super flirtatious, go out alone, etc... All of these types of behavior may lead to crisis situations, none of which "they deserve". This is where you and I disagree. How a person dresses or behaves does not constitute abuse or violence. It does not mean that I don't understand from the agressors side. I have seen women dress and behave in manners where the purpose is to get a rise out of individuals, and then when those people behave instictually the women cry out. The point is, if the individual does not give consent (be it for sex, or being filmed, etc) then they have been wronged. After all, don't we also criticism individuals who are sheepish (shy, recluse, un-social, carpets) for not standing up for themselves. If they are steped on, or raped/plundered/etc then they deserve it because they did nothing to stop the onslaught?
What most people don't realize is that many places with recording devices state it somewhere. Even residences/government buildings/etc have signs issuing warnings that there is survellience. Due to this fact, the material is admissable in courts of law as evidence. Hidden camaras, without warnings usually are not admissable in a number of courts. That footage also can not be publicised without the express permission of the filmer and the subjects. In criminal investigations the team MUST FIRST obtain court approval to secretly record criminals under investigation. TV stations are a different issue, since they have a set of legal experts who contrive the liability and decide whether the material is news worthy enough to take the risk in publicizing it. Often times law suits are brought up against them, but if the financial cost (usually settled out of court) is lower than the revenue or publicity it brings, then it is a risk they assume.
London is a prime example of a city where survellience camaras are located nearly on every street. Crime has been reduced, but there are still many cases of fraud. The camaras are in plan view, and most people know of their existance. The purpose is clearly stated by the local police. They are used only for those purposes, which is to assure the safety of the people in the area. It is not to watch a single individual/group, or harass panhandlers, or people who double park. There are strict guidelines, and when they go outside of them, even if it is in the best interest of a person, they are held accountable.
Once again. It is permissable to have a hidden camara, or a camara in full view. It is what that recording device is used for that determines whether a law has been broken or not. Companies who have it advertized that areas are under survellience are allowed to use the footage in a court of law. People who film private citizens must obtain permission before publishing or using in a court case.
So the guy probably filmed himself and the ladies, and published it on the web or a porn magazine with photos. It is possible he even made copies and sold the videos. This is a case where I would see a clear violation of those ladies rights.
The THIRD issue you raised: B&E gullotine
--------------------------------
The law is VERY CLEAR on this. The only time you are allowed to harm an individual who is B&E (breaking and entering) into your property is if that person is at that moment directly threatening your physical body by a physical act (or another person inside of the property). Any type of booby-trap is AGAINST THE LAW. You are NOT ALLOWED to protect your property, only LIVING HUMAN BEINGS that are BEING THREATENED PHYSICALLY by the B&E.Yes so if a criminal breaks in and kills your pet, there is nothing you can do. If a criminal is attacked by your pet, you will be paying them damages. If you set up a Booby-trap of some sort, you stand to LOSE EVERYTHING you own to the individual and the courts. If the person B&E into your home and falls down the stairs because your railing was broken, you should expect a lawsuit (though it won't necessarily rule in their favor).
So I do believe that the individual who set up the gullotine was definately in the wrong. Having a person B&E into your home and steal food is petty. YES YES, there I times where I say... An eye for an eye... You get the point, but I also believe that this is does not allow for "a hand for a loaf of bread".
(Dave L. 3/13/01)
>>"After looking at your questions, I believe this fall under the same law of voice recording. It is unlawful to record a person without their knowledge."Actually, no it's not in Virginia. It's only illegal in Md or DC, but not in VA. I know because my family
had to personally do this for my brother to disprove a harassment claim/suit. Like they said during the
Lewinsky scandal, if only Linda Tripp had recorded Lewinsky in Virginia, she would be scott free. :)>> "Which then may be imposed on private residences as well, so that people with video security/webcams/etc may be required to post signs at the enterance of their property disclosing the use of video equipment."
I am not sure about these laws either. But, putting those laws aside, should the gov't be allowed to tell you what you can and cannot take pictures of or record in your own house?
I'm not talking about publishing them somewhere like on the internet. Like the case we're talking about, nothing was mentioned about him publishing them anywhere, but just recording them for his own enjoyment.
>>"It comes down in part to the individual having to know their friends, and trust them. There are always situations where you may have housemates that you trust, and may betray that trust, or a previous sweetheart may be hurt and act maliciously."
This is true, unfortunately. :( Ever have a sweet-heart act or do something maliciously to you?
>>"If they are steped on, or raped/plundered/etc then they deserve it because they did nothing to stop the onslaught?"
Well, now this is a very good point which may just sway my opinion. Definitely given me something to think about here...
>> "It is what that recording device is used for that determines whether a law has been broken or not."
Did you hear about the case in the States (I dn't remember all the details) about 4 years ago where there were cameras in plain view in a parking lot, but not hooked up? A lady was sexually attacked, and later sued because the cameras were there, but not
recording. She thought they were recording and put herself in extreme risk to get the guy to give a good display on video of himself so he could be caught.She won the case.
How do you feel about that? I'm not sure. After all, just because I have cameras somewhere doesn't mean I have to have them turned on and recording. I guess it would have to depend on whether there were signs all around saying something like "monitored 24/7".
>>"So the guy probably filmed himself and the ladies, and published it on the web or a porn magazine with photos. It is possible he even made copies and sold the videos. This is a case where I would see a clear violation of those ladies rights."
I would too. However, I do not know. As far as I understand the case, the guy just made the private videos for himself, and did not have them published or distributed anywhere.
>>"Yes so if a criminal breaks in and kills your pet, there is nothing you can do."
Actually, there is. What you do is say that since your pet was killed, you were scared for your life because you didn't know what the person would do to you next.
Also, if someone breaks into your house, you can shoot them. Just make sure they're coming towards you, and you can use a similar line to the above -- you were scared for your life because they "threatened you" and were then coming after you.
My family learned this while taking Virginia's "concealed weapon" permit class.
>>"broken, you should expect a lawsuit (though it won't necessarily rule in their favor)."
I know about the lawsuits and that law, and that's just bullshit in my opinion. Back in the old days (like 1600, 1700s, and 1800s) when these laws weren't in place, they didn't have crime problems. Why are we making the world better for criminals?
There was another case a few years ago where a burgular was breaking into someone's house. However, that someone had a gun, and shot the burgular when the burgular came into the bedroom where that someone and his wife were sleeping. The burgular escaped, later sued, and won. The case had family and gun rights activists upset. :P
(Johanna L. 3/13/01)
>>"Actually, no it's not in Virginia. It's only illegal in Md or DC, but not in VA."Correct. I had forgotten this fact. Please note though, that if the call is coming from out of state then there is an issue again in this area. My parents recorded a series of threatening and harrassing phone calls a number of years ago. They were told that because the calls were not from this jurisdiction (state) that it may not be admissable.
>>"I am not sure about these laws either. But, putting those laws aside, should the gov't be allowed to tell you what you can and cannot take pictures of or record in your own house?"
I do not believe they should have the right to tell you what you may and may not record. There are secure govt facilities which we are not allowed to record for security reasons. Is there justification in this claim?>>"I'm not talking about publishing them somewhere like on the internet. Like the case we're talking about, nothing was mentioned about him publishing them anywhere, but just recording them for his own enjoyment."
In this case, I don't believe that that the law should prevent you. If you are recording/photographing something for YOURSELF personally then there is not an issue. If you begin to share that with friends/roommates/family members, even though you are not publishing it publicially then you have violated that other individuals rights.
>>"This is true, unfortunately. :( Ever have a sweet-heart act or do something maliciously to you?"
I do believe that in everyones life at some point, they have felt betrayed by a loved one be it family/friend/SO. The optimist in me wishes to believe that the other person did not have malicious intent, but then ...>>"There were cameras in plain view...A lady sued because the cameras were there, but not recording. She won the case. How do you feel about that?"
This is correct. There is regulations about this. I believe it is stated that if a security device is in plan view that it MUST BE FUNCTIONING because it is giving people a false sense of security. The university was under scrutiny due to their broken call boxes, and security camaras which were not hooked up. We were Liable for any incident which would have taken place in those areas, and the person was unable to use the call box, or thought the camara would be used as evidence.
>>"As far as I understand the case, the guy just made the private videos for himself, and did not have them published or distributed anywhere."
If he filmed them, and DID NOT SHOW THEM TO ANYONE then he should not be helf accountable for anything. It is only a form of assault to the person if the materials are used in a matter to cause mental anguish. Even in the case that it is being shared with other people, even if in the privacy of the residence. The moment was shared between him and the women individually. The women would not have been justified in complaining if he kept it as a personal momento.
>>"My family learned this while taking Virginia's 'concealed weapon' permit class."
Yes. I know a number of individuals who have attended these classes. In addition they make it very clear at any gun training courses. They say to make sure you never shoot in the back, and be sure that the person is ALL the way into the house. I believe it is to leave no question in the mind of the judge or jury that you jumped the gun (sorry for the pun) before you were sure of the persons intent.
>>"There was another case a few years ago where a burgular was breaking into someone's house. However, that someone had a gun, and shot the burgular when the burgular came into the bedroom where that someone and his wife were sleeping. The burgular escaped, later sued, and won. The case had family and gun rights activists upset. :P"
Unfortunately there are many cases like this one. As I aforementioned about the family pet, well many criminals have been awarded $ for damages. I don't agree with these laws at all. I think once a person is within your property, be it to steal or cause harm to the individuals in the house they should not be protected in anyway. You are threatening/stealing from the people in that home. For me it is cut and dry. All criminals should know that if they B&E then there is NOTHING protecting them, that the individuals in the home have the law completely behind them.
NOTE: This does not mean people can torture the individual, nor fill them up with 20 rounds either. Excess is excess. I think this should extend to Law enforcement too. I think that if two points/shooters are assigned at a scene they should be the only two allowed to fire so that we don't have ONE PERSON with 30-60 bullet holes in them. Excessive.In addition, I personally would like to be able to protect the belongings I have. We all work very hard to earn our money and be able to have a home and things in it. I DON'T AGREE that booby trapping should be okay. IT IS STUFF, and if we become so materialistic that our possessions (even family heirlooms) have more value than that of another persons life/body then we are in a sad state. Having an alarm system in the home is good protection for all cases (fire/theft/B&E/medical).
(Dave L. 3/22/01)
>>"Please note though, that if the call is coming from out of state then there is an issue again in this area... They were told that because the calls were not from this jurisdiction (state) that it may not be admissable."That does make the situation a bit more complex doesn't it? One could argue that one should know the rules in the other state. Just like when you're driving... if someone from out of state drives into Virginia during a rainstorm, most don't know that they have to have their headlights on because their homestate doesn't. I saw this in court -- some guy from Ohio was given a ticket because he didn't have his headlights on. The judge was reasonable and let him off because the defendant showed the judge he was from out of state.
I guess if we figure out the logic between all these interstate relationships, the sales tax issue of different jurisdictions would be settled too.
>> " There are secure govt facilities which we are not allowed to record for security reasons. Is there justification in this claim?"
Or when you go to certain magic shows or musical events, you're not allowed to record either. Why is that? Private property? How can you pay admission and not be allowed to record? In regards to the gov't facilities, I would say that I think you should be allowed to record any place or anything you're allowed to see. If they don't want you recording something, then you shouldn't be allowed in.
>>"NOTE: This does not mean people can torchure the individual, nor fill them up with 20 rounds either."
*laugh* Good disclaimer, and I totally agree. :)
(Johanna L. 3/22/01)
>>"The judge was reasonable and let him off because the defendant showed the judge he was from out of state."
The judge was kind. Many would not have. They would state claims that there are signs on the entry of the State. This is true for radar detectors and seatbelts. They do not cut slack on those. I have known numerous people who have gotten in trouble coming into state with radar detectors.>>"I guess if we figure out the logic between all these interstate relationships, the sales tax issue of different jurisdictions would be settled too."
This was a discuss that my roommate and I had just taken on. Last night we were discussing the fact not only of sales tax differences between states, but within municipalities as well. Many counties, cities, townships, etc also have an additional tax. In fact there are lodging taxes which vary by state and municipality, as well as paper product and food... It gets confusing.
>>"When you go to certain magic shows or musical events, you're not allowed to record either. Why is that?...In regards to the gov't facilities, I would say that I think you should be allowed to record any place or anything you're allowed to see. If they don't want you recording something, then you shouldn't be allowed in."
In this situations where you are paying to view a performance, that is what you are paying for. Most provide video media if you are interested in purchasing it. Making your own is illegal, just as making copies of theirs and distributing is as well. They are protecting their artistic license.
In facilities where they allow you to go in, it is because the don't mind you simply walking through certain areas. There are areas which are restricted and other times they don't want you to have the ability to review a video numerous times to identify faces of people, or security breaches that are possible, etc. In China, it is illegal to photograph ANY police or military offical. It is consider is a security liability.
B. My pet peeve of the day(Johanna L. 3/28/01)
Why is it that items like:
- multicar and tractor trailer accident on Braddock RD 3/27
- Hybola virus and AIDS virus crossed to treat cysticfibrosis
- Bush repeals and lowers water quality standardsGet a one time mention on the news?
While we are subject to listening to daily updates on the monica lewinsky situation, the oscars, temptation island, mad cow disease, high school shooting court cases, and the submarine that surfaced too quickly court proceedings.
How about giving everything equal time, or an every other day mention. Anyone notice the recent increase in High School shootings, or prior arrests that have taken place in the last four months? Why is that that we only keep hearing about the young man in California, and not about the girl in PA, and the other two young men in California? How about last Thursdays attack and the glance over, vs the indepth court coverage of the former Fredick MD teen in California?
Just bothered.
I still want to hear more about the Hybola and AIDS combination. I want to hear more about Bushes DROPPING water quality standards. These should get some news time too... After all, I think these effect me more than the oscars.
(Keith R. 3/28/01)
Damn Democratics :-) Doesn't anyone realize that Bush is repealing all those last minute environmental issues that Clinton implemented in his very last day in office, to make it seem that he was the King of the Environmental Cause. Every additional environmental concern and raising of qualities costs the government more and more money, which in turn causes MY taxes to go up and up. If Clinton wanted to clean up the environment, why didn't we do it during his term..... because it would have cost way too much money !!! My new mantra is GIVE ME MY DAMN TAX CUT !!!!!! Hehe, just mad ramblings from Keith's insame brain, must be all the lead and polutants in the water. :o)
(Jeff J. 3/28/01)
Yeah.. also more about how people in our military keep dying or having malfunctions on test flights because our hardware is so antiquated. Everyone's out playing global cop without realizing what's going on at the home front. We have more and more kids who grow up without real parents. More and more parents having kids who can't even keep jobs, or afford to feed one child.I think the bad sign of last year is the fact that a person on a reality tv show somehow gets to be a star and like we're supposed to care where he goes or what he WEARS. Entertainment Tonight is the sign of where TV is going in this world. Style over content on every channel. Fox 5 trying to tell us that the next hamburger we eat or the next sliding door we walk through could kill us, while on ABC we get to seelive footage of sheep burning in Europe.
It used to be criminals committed crimes for money or just due to snapping. Now people want attention. Crimes nowadays are great ways to feel noticed in some people's minds. Criminals think.. "well.. if I can't make a difference now, I can sure make a difference by using a gun and getting on TV, people will remember me then."
Not to mention Hilary Clinton just spent twice as much on her office as any other senator. Bill Clinton is racking up some wonderful bills to the gov't for his 500,000$ desk that he "needs". Guess who's paying the bill for both the items.. us. And Bush spends almost EVERY weekend at Camp David. Politics aren't worth following.. the supreme court is the only branch of the gov't that isn't just a group of puppets on strings.
And the Oscars ? It's hard to find out on the web who won if you goto a "news" website... you have to blow by all the links about people's dresses and outfits and who showed up with whom.
This is why I don't watch or listen to the news. It's not worth my time. You can find out the basic facts and multiple opinions by just talking to people. And they don't put out scare tactics like TV.
Explanation for this rant : I saw Fight Club again last night on DVD, so I'm still in the anti-establishment mode. :)
Some quotes :
"the things you own end up owning you"
"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your f***ing khakis. "
"Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate, so we can buy sh*t we don't need."Moral of the story : Look up news on the web, and not on TV.