Visit ArabTopics.com

Analog Equivalent Rights (8/21): Using Third-Party Services Should Not Void Expectation of Privacy

here-are-your-car-keys-picture-id637990904

Privacy: Ross Ulbricht handed in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court last week, highlighting an important Analog Equivalent Privacy Right in the process: Just because you’re using equipment that makes a third party aware of your circumstances, does that really nullify any expectation of privacy?

In most constitutions, there’s a protection of privacy of some kind. In the European Charter of Human Rights, this is specified as having the right to private and family life, home, and correspondence. In the U.S. Constitution, it’s framed slightly differently, but with the same outcome: it’s a ban for the government to invade privacy without good cause (“unreasonable search and seizure”).

U.S. Courts have long held, that if you have voluntarily given up some part of your digitally-stored privacy to a third party, then you can no longer expect to have privacy in that area. When looking at analog equivalence for privacy rights, this doctrine is atrocious, and in order to understand just how atrocious, we need to go back to the dawn of the manual telephone switchboards.

At the beginning of the telephone age, switchboards were fully manual. When you requested a telephone call, a manual switchboard operator would manually connect the wire from your telephone to the wire of the receiver’s telephone, and crank a mechanism that would make that telephone ring. The operators could hear every call if they wanted and knew who had been talking to whom and when.

Did you give up your privacy to a third party when using this manual telephone service? Yes, arguably, you did. Under the digital doctrine applied now, phonecalls would have no privacy at all, under any circumstance. But as we know, phonecalls are private. In fact, the phonecall operators were oathsworn to never utter the smallest part of what they learned on the job about people’s private dealings — so seriously was privacy considered, even by the companies running the switchboards.

Interestingly enough, this “third-party surrender of privacy” doctrine seems to have appeared the moment the last switchboard operator left their job for today’s automated phone-circuit switches. This was as late as 1983, just at the dawn of digital consumer-level technology such as the Commodore 64.

This false equivalence alone should be sufficient to scuttle the doctrine of “voluntarily” surrendering privacy to a third party in the digital world, and therefore giving up expectation of privacy: the equivalence in the analog world was the direct opposite.

But there’s more to the analog equivalent of third-party-service privacy. Somewhere in this concept is the notion that you’re voluntarily choosing to give up your privacy, as an active informed act — in particular, an act that stands out of the ordinary, since the Constitutions of the world are very clear that the ordinary default case is that you have an expectation of privacy.

In other words, since people’s everyday lives are covered by expectations of privacy, there must be something outside of the ordinary that a government can claim gives it the right to take away somebody’s privacy. And this “outside the ordinary” has been that the people in question were carrying a cellphone, and so “voluntarily” gave up their right to privacy, as the cellphone gives away their location to the network operator by contacting cellphone towers.

But carrying a cellphone is expected behavior today. It is completely within the boundaries of “ordinary”. In terms of expectations, this doesn’t differ much from wearing jeans or a jacket. This leads us to the question; in the thought experiment that yesterday’s jeans manufacturers had been able to pinpoint your location, had it been reasonable for the government to argue that you give up any expectation of privacy when you’re wearing jeans?

No. No, of course it hadn’t.

It’s not like you’re carrying a wilderness tracking device for the express purpose of rescue services to find you during a dangerous hike. In such a circumstance, it could be argued that you’re voluntarily carrying a locator device. But not when carrying something that everybody is expected to carry — indeed, something that everybody must carry in order to even function in today’s society.

When the only alternative to having your Constitutionally-guaranteed privacy is exile from modern society, a government should have a really thin case. Especially when the analog equivalent — analog phone switchboards — was never fair game in any case.

People deserve Analog Equivalent Privacy Rights.

Until a government recognizes this and voluntarily surrenders a power it has taken itself, which isn’t something people should hold their breath over, privacy remains your own responsibility.

(This is a post from Falkvinge on Liberty, obtained via RSS at this feed.)

Source: 
Rick Falkvinge

Dear friends of this aggregator

  • Yes, I intentionally removed Newsbud from the aggregator on Mar 22.
  • Newsbud did not block the aggregator, although their editor blocked me on twitter after a comment I made to her
  • As far as I know, the only site that blocks this aggregator is Global Research. I have no idea why!!
  • Please stop recommending Newsbud and Global Research to be added to the aggregator.

Support this site

News Sources

Source Items
Grayzone Project 12
Pass Blue 57
Dilyana Gaytandzhieva 14
John Pilger 410
The Real News 367
Scrutinised Minds 27
Need To Know News 1688
FEE 3251
Marine Le Pen 231
Francois Asselineau 25
Opassande 53
HAX on 5July 220
Henrik Alexandersson 545
Mohamed Omar 242
Professors Blog 10
Arg Blatte Talar 37
Angry Foreigner 17
Fritte Fritzson 11
Teologiska rummet 32
Filosofiska rummet 71
Vetenskapsradion Historia 117
Snedtänkt (Kalle Lind) 177
Les Crises 1884
Richard Falk 116
Ian Sinclair 80
SpinWatch 50
Counter Currents 6333
Kafila 359
Gail Malone 33
Transnational Foundation 221
Rick Falkvinge 93
The Duran 6562
Vanessa Beeley 93
Nina Kouprianova 9
MintPress 4811
Paul Craig Roberts 1157
News Junkie Post 44
Nomi Prins 24
Kurt Nimmo 191
Strategic Culture 3477
Sir Ken Robinson 16
Stephan Kinsella 66
Liberty Blitzkrieg 796
Sami Bedouin 61
Consortium News 2152
21 Century Wire 2916
Burning Blogger 281
Stephen Gowans 67
David D. Friedman 128
Anarchist Standard 16
The BRICS Post 1465
Tom Dispatch 410
Levant Report 17
The Saker 3437
The Barnes Review 472
John Friend 366
Psyche Truth 146
Jonathan Cook 135
New Eastern Outlook 3113
School Sucks Project 1736
Giza Death Star 1565
Andrew Gavin Marshall 15
Red Ice Radio 567
GMWatch 1804
Robert Faurisson 148
Espionage History Archive 34
Jay's Analysis 743
Le 4ème singe 87
Jacob Cohen 197
Agora Vox 10794
Cercle Des Volontaires 417
Panamza 1647
Fairewinds 103
Project Censored 721
Spy Culture 370
Conspiracy Archive 66
Crystal Clark 11
Timothy Kelly 490
PINAC 1482
The Conscious Resistance 547
Independent Science News 66
The Anti Media 5577
Positive News 820
Brandon Martinez 30
Steven Chovanec 61
Lionel 259
The Mind renewed 211
Natural Society 2467
Yanis Varoufakis 814
Tragedy & Hope 122
Dr. Tim Ball 65
Web of Debt 125
Porkins Policy Review 347
Conspiracy Watch 174
Eva Bartlett 563
Libyan War Truth 280
DeadLine Live 1905
Kevin Ryan 61
BSNEWS 1966
Aaron Franz 187
Traces of Reality 166
Revelations Radio News 121
Dr. Bruce Levine 111
Peter B Collins 1339
Faux Capitalism 205
Dissident Voice 9548
Climate Audit 220
Donna Laframboise 356
Judith Curry 1052
Geneva Business Insider 40
Media Monarchy 1991
Syria Report 70
Human Rights Investigation 90
Intifada (Voice of Palestine) 1685
Down With Tyranny 10128
Laura Wells Solutions 27
Video Rebel's Blog 411
Revisionist Review 485
Aletho News 17857
ضد العولمة 27
Penny for your thoughts 2659
Northerntruthseeker 2045
كساريات 37
Color Revolutions and Geopolitics 27
Stop Nato 4617
AntiWar.com Blog 2690
AntiWar.com Original Content 6116
Corbett Report 2087
Stop Imperialism 491
Land Destroyer 1107
Webster Tarpley Website 940

Compiled Feeds

Public Lists

Title Visibility
Funny Public