
How Frictionless Sharing Could Undermine Your Legal Right to Privacy - newman314
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-frictionless-sharing-could-undermine-your-legal-right-to-privacy/254277/
======
eternalban
Given the fact that former CEO of Google Inc. and current CEO of Facebook have
loudly and repeatedly conveyed that one does not have reasonable expectation
of privacy when using their systems; and given the fact that EULA of your
little digital helper effectively renders the device property of the vendor;
per last month's SCOTUS relevant judgment it would appear that we no longer
enjoy legal protection against unreasonable searches and seizures using the
said services and devices.

------
einhverfr
I think the article got Alito's position in Jones wrong. Alito was deeply
worried about the rise of a surveillance state in areas where the 4th
Amendment doesn't apply today. The thing si that a warrant is not required
today in these areas anyway due to other doctrines. Statutes may impose such
but that's not a Constitutional consideration.

Warrants are not required right now. Alito was seeking to tighten these up.

------
lani
a plant from the drm lobby

------
sliverstorm
Just another one of the victories of the "Information wants to be free"
movement!

~~~
autarch
I think you're conflating two things. I'm a proponent of abolishing copyright
and other so-called intellectual property. I do believe that information,
_once made public_ , should be unrestricted.

This is orthogonal to the notion that private communications should stay
private. What this article is really about is the definition of public vs
private, and has very little to do with intellectual property issues.

~~~
andrewflnr
So your ideal legal system does not recognize ownership of information, just
whether it is "public" or "private", and has legal protection for private
information? I'm just curious how the no-IP theory goes. One thing that
concerned me was protection for works in progress, where people need to send,
say, manuscripts for a novel back and forth, or tracks for a CD.

~~~
autarch
We could have ownership of a sort without copyright. Copyright lets you tell
other people what they can do with a copy of a work after it's released. I
think the only right the law should protect is the right to release a work or
not.

~~~
andrewflnr
So if I get my hands on a copy of a work that's not released, and start
handing out copies, what happens to me?

~~~
autarch
I dunno. Civil suit? Do I have to have all the answers? I just think that the
system we have now is both broken and unethical.

~~~
andrewflnr
No, I'm just curious. I find the idea of abolishing intellectual property both
hard to understand and fascinating, so I want to see how other people see it
working.

