"California (and by proxy, its residents) is strange."
I resemble that remark! :-D
.....and yes, this list has been slow lately --- lots of users on vacation?
Bernard J. King Senior Designer CADD/GIS Dept.
MWH Portland, OR 503.220.5430 (direct) 503.226.7377 (office) 503.226.0023 (fax)
|---------+----------------------------> | | "Anthony | | | Quartararo" | | | <ajq3@spatialnetw| | | orks.com> | | | | | | 07/22/2003 01:31 | | | PM | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: <gislist@geocomm.com> | | cc: | | Subject: RE: GISList: Isn't she supposed to be an environmental | >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
This is fairly tangential, not terribly relevant to the industry, but hey, since this list is a ghost town lately, why not.
1) California (and by proxy, its residents) is strange.
Cheers.
Anthony
> -----Original Message----- > From: Harsh Prakash [mailto:hvp@regiononepdc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 1:37 PM > To: gislist@geocomm.com > Subject: Re: GISList: Isn't she supposed to be an environmental > > > > > A "reasonable expectation of privacy" is an excepted argument > (it is used esp. w.r.t. fourth amendment cases, and > sometimes, such cases have been triggered even when the > observation vehicle is at a position where it has the right to be). > > Very crudely put, if a person completely owns a closed > dwelling and takes adequate precautions to keep her bedroom > private, then she creates a "reasonable expectation of > privacy" that the "society is willing to accept". In such a > case, if someone uses hi-tech equipments to penetrate and > scan the inside details of her bedroom (certainly not the > case here) without explicit permission or authorization, then > he takes away something from her "bundle of rights" (note > that if a person buys an open house, say, in the center of > Times Square, NYC, then he may not claim a "reasonable > expectation of privacy" for obvious reasons). > > > Not an issue, because if it is viewable from a public space > it is, by > > definition, not private. > ...Interesting argument. But there may be more to it- for > one, we cannot be expected to completely cover our houses. > The key here may be just how much private details do the > photographs reveal, details that the property owner took > pains to hide- sensitive details that were later openly distributed. > > Since the focus was on the coastline, the photographer has > little to worry about and the case may just get thrown out. > > Hopefully, map-making would enjoy a "good-intent" protection. > However, not knowing all the facts and arguments, I certainly > can NOT claim how well the arguments apply to such cases. > These are just some general questions to inform our discussion. > > Harsh > PS: Then again, just how relevant are the intimate details of > someone's house, if there were any, to a coastline monitoring > project? And what if, say a fishing business along the coast, > claims that its trade-secrets get revealed by such > photographs, photographs which can then be used by competing > businesses? > > PPS: "...expectation of privacy is either inherently > reasonable or it is inherently unreasonable" (O' Conner). > > > > > To unsubscribe, write to gislist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com > ______________________________________________________________ > __________ > GeoCommunity GeoBids - less than $1 per day! > Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and > bids http://www.geobids.com > > Online Archive of GISList (and numerous others) available at: > http://spatialnews.geocomm.com/community/lists/ > > Setup a > GeoCommunity Account and have access to > the GISDataDepot DRG & DOQQ Catalog
|