Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Death of Privacy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dmjae2004@yahoo.com
    replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    I'm in WAY over my head. Thats never stopped anyone in these Forums

    Leave a comment:


  • J.Klebanoff
    replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    Dave, Sorry for the confusion about 3rd country. I thought you were talking about the specific real case that you brought up, not my hypothetical one. OK. I'll bow out of this thread of the forum now. I'm in WAY over my head. Joel

    Leave a comment:


  • dmjae2004@yahoo.com
    replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    Joel, The reason why this was a heavily contested case (Dow Jones also included legal representation for Amazon and Yahoo) is because Dow Jones wanted the case held under US jurisdiction where Gutnick would had less likely being able to win a defamation case It was argued the issue of choice of law was the focus of the judgment. Dow Jones wanted US law to apply, as they could enjoy the protection of free speech provided for under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Based on your scenario above of US based company with information hosted on Bermuda servers then I believe the suit in Australia would be considered a 3rd Country - based on your hypothetical scenario. The crux of the Gutnick position is that the basis for determining whether a case in defamation can be heard has been whether the material was comprehended by someone who was in that jurisdiction at the time they comprehended it. That is it is not based on the citizenship of the person alleging defamation....one are Gutnick had to agree is that he would not seek to have the case held in other countries (in this case possibly Israel given he has business there)

    Leave a comment:


  • J.Klebanoff
    replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    dave400 said:
    a case of a 3rd country where the laws will be applied
    I know that it's a bit picky, but actually it's not a 3rd country. I only skimmed the page that you provide the link for, but unless I missed something, the appellant, Dow Jones & Company Inc., is in the U.S. and the respondent -- the person who claims he was defamed -- lives in Australia. The respondent launched the suit in the Australia, so it is a 1st or 2nd country depending on which frame of reference you take. dave400 also said:
    If I understand correctly in the US there is a protection of Free Speech.
    Yes, and I believe that they also protect free speech in Australia. But, while I'm not an expert on U.S. law (or any country's laws, for that matter), I do think that the U.S. has laws regarding defamation of character as they apparently do in Australia. If so, had the respondent been living in the U.S., he likely would have brought suit there if he felt that he had been defamed. The differences between the two countries' laws may affect the outcome of the case, but I really don't see the fact that the respondent was able to sue Dow Jones in Australia as an issue given that he resides there and Dow Jones made the allegedly defamatory article freely available to the respondents friends, family and other compatriots in Australia.

    Leave a comment:


  • dmjae2004@yahoo.com
    replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    If, for example, a customer in Canada contracts services from an American company that locates its servers in Bermuda, which country's laws apply? And, you are right, in that hypothetical circumstance, the customer probably wouldn't know that his or her information resides in Bermuda. Sorry Joel this is far from hypotehtical. The most public case I know of is Dow Jones Vs Gutnick. In essence it could be a case of a 3rd country where the laws will be applied. If I understand correctly in the US there is a protection of Free Speech. In this case Dow Jones published an article host on its US servers. However the article was read elsewhere (in this case Australia) and that is the law that was applied.

    Leave a comment:


  • J.Klebanoff
    replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    Good point Glen. In general, that is an issue in the Internet age. If, for example, a customer in Canada contracts services from an American company that locates its servers in Bermuda, which country's laws apply? And, you are right, in that hypothetical circumstance, the customer probably wouldn't know that his or her information resides in Bermuda. However, in the case of my voice mail, I don't think that is an issue. I'm a Canadian living in Canada. I subscribe to the voice mail services of Bell Canada, a Canadian company. And, while I'm not sure, I think that Bell Canada keeps its voice mail servers in Canada. That, and I'm a lonely guy who rarely gets messages anyway, so it's really not much of an issue to start with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    Joel said: Then again, it's just a point of curiosity for me since, being in Canada, I'm protected (unprotected?) by some completely different law Here's the rub. If you have a phone company that works both in the U.S and Canada (or internet e-mail provider) how do you know where your information resides and who's laws it is governed by? Just thought I'd through that in.....

    Leave a comment:


  • J.Klebanoff
    replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    Dave said:
    For those with a spare 15 minutes Court Opinion including Dissent does include a comment on VoiceMail.
    Thanks for pointing that out. I did look at the opinion before writing the article, but I obviously did not read it carefully enough. Then again, what does "after those messages were delivered" mean? Delivered to my voice mailbox? Or, delivered to my ear and then deleted from my voice mailbox? If it's the latter then I think that I that I am going to have to be much faster at getting to my voice mail. Then again, it's just a point of curiosity for me since, being in Canada, I'm protected (unprotected?) by some completely different law. I should probably do some research on that, but the weather is much too nice to do that research now--maybe when the snow flies.

    Leave a comment:


  • uptech
    replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    But we have every right to comment on what should and should not be legal, boldly! If only lawyers can understand the law, then nobody is safe. And since we have elected almost all lawyers to our representative bodies, we have turned ourselves over to this kind of thing. An example of this is the U.S. Constitution. To understand it, you don't have to be a lawyer at all! In fact, you can see clearly where declarations of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court is valid, and where it hasn't been, in clear text! That said, it was clearly unethical. And there's a lot going on like that. Good thing you spoke up.

    Leave a comment:


  • dmjae2004@yahoo.com
    replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    Doesn't that logic mean that if you subscribe to a phone company's voicemail service, the phone company should be free to listen to your messages because they are stored on the company's servers and not in transit? What has logic got to do with the law ? For those with a spare 15 minutes Court Opinion including Dissent does include a comment on VoiceMail. "Congress included electronic storage in its definition of wire communications because it wanted voicemails to be protected under the Wiretap Act after those messages were delivered." So voicemail is explicity protected. Just another example of where technology advances have outpaced the Legal System. In this case it seems the hole was created by an ommission by Congress. However I think the dissenting Judge has it right with "There is nothing about defendant's conduct that the average person would generally consider innocent."

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    It seems to me that the ISP has no right to capture and read email. A lot of times you will see a disclaimer on emails with "This email is inteneded for the recipient etc..." which means not the ISP. The comparison to the postal service is very apt, would we really accept the postal service having a sift through our communications ? It's bad enough that they give out my address never mind anything else. As for employees, I take a fairly liberal view on that. Don't send "tasteless" or "offensive" jokes which pretty much captures everything these days and don't goof off.

    Leave a comment:


  • MCWebsite.Staff
    started a topic The Death of Privacy

    The Death of Privacy

    ** This thread discusses the article: The Death of Privacy **
    ** This thread discusses the Content article: The Death of Privacy **
    0
Working...
X