The mysterious case of Ms. Carrie Prejean

[kandrathe]

But I don't feel that the freedom of the media has to be curtailed to protect my privacy, which is, I think, the essence of this discussion; how much freedom is each of us willing to sacrifice for the illusion of protection.

This may be the point of confusion; I'm not interested in curtailing anyones 1st amendment freedom. I'm interested in strengthening a persons 4th amendment freedom. The question I would pose is "Say you find yourself in possession of private information, what is the "correct" action to take with that information?".

To me, it matters not if you are the government, a business, the media, or a private individual who has been mistakenly mailed the wrong bank statement. The law protecting our 4th amendment rights should make it illegal to reveal private information about each other, whether that be medical, legal, financial, or prurient.

[kandrathe]

Who pays for this?

It is a subscription service paid for by those who are legal required to filter, and for those companies who would rather not deal with infractions of that nature and the subsequent lawsuits. It's becoming as common as spam filtering for e-mail.

[kandrathe]

As to the Prejean-Palin connection check out this link:http://www.borowitzreport.com/

First, "University of Minnesota's School of Divinity" is an oxymoron. If anything they would be the second school in America to have a program devoted to Pagan studies, or as it is called at the University of Florida, and advanced degree in "Religion and Nature".

Having spent 4 years at the U of M, I would plainly say that it is a school that is fairly hostile to white men, and having come right off the cattle ranch and rodeo circuit to become an urban freshman I was doubly cursed. The best way to survive in that environment was at least a feigned self loathing. Needless to say, my undergraduate experience was where I learned that what I think doesn't matter. It is best to demonstrate that you think what the professor thinks, and keep your own thoughts locked up until after graduation (with honors).

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm applying the principles of the 4th amendment, . . .

. . . in a way that they don't apply. The fourth amendment puts limitations on what the government can do, not on private individuals, and especially not on the media. You've fallen in the same trap as those who get banned from a site for posting something and then cry 'first amendment'. The Bill of Rights limits the government, not the people.

. . . and the common law principles of copyright or trademark protections, and of people to not be slandered or libeled.

All of which is in place. But seldom gets used. And hardly needs to be augmented, especially at the cost of reducing freedoms.

I'm suggesting that sensitive private information be kept from the public domain by law, and that those publishing private information into the public domain without the owners consent can be held liable for the losses incurred by people who are damaged.

You mean like loss of office for dirty tricks and taping conversations? I'm sure that Tricky Dick would sign any such legislation into law in a Washington second. Might need an asbestos pen to do it.

. . . represent "traditional values".

And that's really the rub, isn't it. She represents "traditional values" (I prefer to think of them as 'established prejudice') and gets pummeled. Too bad. Her bad luck in representing a state of homophobes. Her bad judgment for not coming up with a way to avoid the controversy. Perhaps she should have had her brain enhanced rather then her breasts.

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,
. . . in a way that they don't apply. The fourth amendment puts limitations on what the government can do, not on private individuals, and especially not on the media. You've fallen in the same trap as those who get banned from a site for posting something and then cry 'first amendment'. The Bill of Rights limits the government, not the people.
--Pete

Exactly. And this woman also doesn't seem to understand her "rights to free speach" despite repeatedly claiming she has been punished for exerting them. Firstly, I fail to see how she has in any way been punished for anything she has said. She is still Miss California, she wasn't fired from the position. If she is arguing that she was punished by not getting the title of Miss USA then she is obviously crying to the wrong people. She was acting as an employee of Miss Universe Inc when she answered that question and as such is required to represent and adhere to her corporate and contractual obligations. As was Perez Hilton. If she really feels she is being unfairly treated for answering in a way she truly believes why don't we see her quiting the pageant and relinquishing the title of Miss California?

Of course she wasn't let go! The Donald is a thorough believer that any publicity is good publicity and this woman is either buying into it or she is too dense to realize what her principles are and how to stick up for them.

[Jester]

Right, but I'm not asking for a ban on scandal rags or any curb to free speech. I'm applying the principles of the 4th amendment, and the common law principles of copyright or trademark protections, and of people to not be slandered or libeled.

Yeah, you have no problem with the scandal rags. Just the stuff they publish. You know... the stuff that makes them scandal rags.

And you don't want to curb their free speech. Just, you know, the stuff they say. The stuff that people don't like.

They can feel free to print regular news, though. Chocolate rations are up!

-Jester

[Jester]

Having spent 4 years at the U of M, I would plainly say that it is a school that is fairly hostile to white men, and having come right off the cattle ranch and rodeo circuit to become an urban freshman I was doubly cursed. The best way to survive in that environment was at least a feigned self loathing. Needless to say, my undergraduate experience was where I learned that what I think doesn't matter. It is best to demonstrate that you think what the professor thinks, and keep your own thoughts locked up until after graduation (with honors).

You're claiming victim status not only for Carrie Prejean, but yourself for your traumatic time at the University of Minnesota, as a member of the "white, male, heterosexual, Christian"* minority that has been so horribly oppressed in days of late?

I'd have hoped your skin might be a little thicker than that...

-Jester

*if any of these things is inaccurate, just say so, but I think you've confirmed them all at one point or another.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It is a subscription service paid for by those who are legal required to filter, and for those companies who would rather not deal with infractions of that nature and the subsequent lawsuits. It's becoming as common as spam filtering for e-mail.

OK, nice generic answer. So, let's make it more personal. Who pays for this for the Lurker Lounge?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

OK, nice generic answer. So, let's make it more personal. Who pays for this for the Lurker Lounge?

The web site doesn't pay (e.g. LL.com, Google.com, wikipedia.com or Whitehouse.gov). The person or company wanting to content filter their internet pays for the subscription (e.g. FBI, school, or paranoid business). If a person doesn't want filtered internet, they don't install the internet filtering appliance and they don't buy the subscription. Like I said earlier though, it is inconsistent. It blocks good sites due to human error, and then also allows some bad ones as well due to limited time to surf the whole web and the amount of change that occurs.

[kandrathe]

I do not need a warrant to wire tap your phone. I can eavesdrop on your wireless phone, your VoIP system, your land lines, whatever. I might be breaking some laws in some of these cases (mostly having to do with trespass), although the only one I'm familiar with covers what I do with the information, but not how I go about getting it. You see, you are mixing what government can do and what individuals can do. Your original subject was not about government intrusion, but about media and individual intrusion -- two very different things.

The phone was just an example of how attitudes have changes about privacy from 1928. Can I take your photograph? How about while you are sleeping in your bed with my mini drone with the super telephoto lens? How about while you are walking in public? What if my IR camera with special software can see through your clothing? I'm just saying what Brandeis was saying in his article, that the law needs to keep up with advances in technology. That way when my electronic data is hacked, or my privacy is invaded I have a legal recourse.

Privacy protection for public actions is what you are arguing for. Sorry, but that seems quixotic. You are already protected in your house, on your property, and so forth by laws covering trespass, etc.

Right, but again, look at the telephone. From 1928 until 1965, the law stated that a telephone, even when you were speaking in the privacy of your house, could be legally tapped. We have the means to examine what anyone has displayed on their TV, or computer monitor, or listen into any home by bouncing laser beams off glass from the street. There are so many ways available now to spy on each other beyond trespass. (See William L. Prosser) Again, the law may be trying to catch up, but technology continues to out run the law at a staggering pace.

My rules or yours? Yours when you were a young single guy or yours now that you'd like society's help in raising your kids? The rules based on Christian morality, or those of a more enlightened group? And in a world where we cannot even agree that rapist and murderers should be available for justice across borders, you expect some agreement and enforcement on Internet privacy violations? Extradition for some kid that photoshops your head onto some porn star's body?

You are thinking too literally here. I was only talking about administration of registering a little bit more information about the entities that purchase domains. That way I might have some idea in advance of what Whitehouse.com might be selling. Also, sometimes the rules encourage freedom, like say a rule that prohibits censorship of web sites that are not in violation of the laws in the ISP's locality.

Right. So what? You originally said...

And... I am hopeful that it will...

That's sort of the definition of 'public', you know -- pretty much the opposite of 'private'.

If I were in public, I wouldn't be hiding. I was thinking more of when private information gets used without permission. Common law has a long history of supporting a persons right to the left alone unless they are in violation of some other law or violating someone else's rights. The laws are catching up, and FERPA, GLB, HIPPA, etc. are an important step in helping to guarantee that individuals can expect some level of privacy protection.

[kandrathe]

Yeah, you have no problem with the scandal rags. Just the stuff they publish. You know... the stuff that makes them scandal rags.

And you don't want to curb their free speech. Just, you know, the stuff they say. The stuff that people don't like.

How about you let me answer rather than speaking for me? I will admit that I have a high level of disdain for people like Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr., and for anyone that is entertained by his kind of web site, newspaper, or magazine. I don't wish him ill, and I don't want him barred from publishing, but I would find it just if all the people who he libels and slanders, and all the people whose content he rips off would seek redress and win civil damage suits against him, as has been done to him in the past. Nothing says "Cease and Desist" your anti-social activity like a huge lawsuit.

[Vandiablo]

A post in which the b-word is not actually used

As far as I know, the only machine capable of accurately filtering sites is squishy and weights about three pounds.

Thanks, Pete, for not actually saying (b-word). We are already swimming in reanimates, we don't need more.

-V

Edit: I said (b-word) originally.
Edit2: I said the b-word in my edit line.

[ShadowHM]

Busybodies and gossip have been around forever, and no amount of privacy laws would ever make much of a dent in it. And, while it may not be as innocuous as I make it sound, neither is it as intrusive as some would have you believe. I've been used as a reference by many over the years and can remember only one time actually being contacted. And that was for a top secret security clearance.

Busybodies and gossip have been around forever. But times have changed and and the intrusiveness has changed by an order of magnitude.

So, right or wrong, I believe that most people are sufficiently preoccupied with living their own life to take much effort or interest in the lives of others.
I think that we have different definitions of 'public' and 'private'. 'Private', to me, means alone or in the company of people I trust. If my "private stupidity will also end up on youtube", then that means I've been betrayed by someone I trusted -- not impossible, but so far it's happened only once.

I cited the example of Michael Phelps, who surely thought he was indulging in private madness when he took a toke of marijuana at a private party. Someone he trusted? Perhaps not. But a betrayal nevertheless.

I am aware of few young people who have lost jobs because of pictures on FaceBook. For example, a young lady, daughter of old friends, was a camp councillor at a day camp on weekdays. She was fired because of a photo posted of her with a beer in her hand, taken at a private party on a weekend. This photo, by the way, was not at her own FaceBook page: she was merely tagged. That means that not only were her employers snoopy enough to go looking, but also that one of her 'friends' allowed them to look.

I know that the plural of anecdote is not evidence. But I also think that the potential for betrayal that you cite stems from a time when technology did not allow for so much intrusiveness.

The changes in widely spread technology have happened so fast that our culture has not evolved any ettiquette to deal with this.

You have the right to protect your privacy as much as you can. I keep my curtains closed, I shred any paper that has personal information before recycling it, I don't discuss my medical or financial details in public. But I don't feel that the freedom of the media has to be curtailed to protect my privacy, which is, I think, the essence of this discussion; how much freedom is each of us willing to sacrifice for the illusion of protection.

--Pete

It isn't the media that worries me. It is the widespread intrusiveness with no societal customs to manage it.

[Jester]

How about you let me answer rather than speaking for me? I will admit that I have a high level of disdain for people like Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr., and for anyone that is entertained by his kind of web site, newspaper, or magazine. I don't wish him ill, and I don't want him barred from publishing, but I would find it just if all the people who he libels and slanders, and all the people whose content he rips off would seek redress and win civil damage suits against him, as has been done to him in the past. Nothing says "Cease and Desist" your anti-social activity like a huge lawsuit.

Right, and nothing says "cease and desist" your free speaking like overly enforced slander and libel laws. Just look at all the good they've done over here in the UK, where the rich and famous come to sue people for saying true-but-uncomfortable things about them. And it's not just spoiled celebrities whining to the nanny state to protect them from the mean old journalists. Simon Singh recently got slapped down for saying that Chiropractic treatments for things like ear infections and asthma were "bogus". That's it. He was taken to court and lost, despite the absolute lack of scientific evidence against his clams.

So, by all means, crank up the slander and libel suits. But don't pretend that this won't have a chilling effect on 1st amendment rights, because it most certainly will.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Right, and nothing says "cease and desist" your free speaking like overly enforced slander and libel laws. Just look at all the good they've done over here in the UK, where the rich and famous come to sue people for saying true-but-uncomfortable things about them. And it's not just spoiled celebrities whining to the nanny state to protect them from the mean old journalists. Simon Singh recently got slapped down for saying that Chiropractic treatments for things like ear infections and asthma were "bogus". That's it. He was taken to court and lost, despite the absolute lack of scientific evidence against his clams.

So, by all means, crank up the slander and libel suits. But don't pretend that this won't have a chilling effect on 1st amendment rights, because it most certainly will.

Let's examine it carefully;

Slander: "A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience."

Does his statement have the effect of harming the Chiropractors livelihood. I would say, yes. I agree that people should be allowed to voice their doubts about such things, and that the Chiropractors should have their day in court to defend their profession. I think the issue is more that Ernst and Singh did not author a scientific paper, or write about accepted scientific evidence, but rather wrote a book, and then promoted it in the Guardian later, in an article, that targets the consumers who provide the chiropractors their living. The decision by the courts really is if Singh made a "false statement", which I understand has an unusually low threshold of proof in the UK. It seems that in the UK, the statement in question is considered to be a "false statement" until it is proven by the defendant to be actually a true statement.

In the US, <blockquote>" In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be “of and concerning” the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In most jurisdictions, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent: that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

A defamation claim — at least one based upon statements about issues that are matters of public interest — will likely fail if any of these elements are not met."
</blockquote>Therefore, in the US, the opposite case exists, where the standard of proof of Slander or Libel are very, very high, and the burden is on the damaged party to prove that the statement made against them actually causes harm, is in fact untrue, and in many cases that the person who said it was doing so maliciously with intent to cause harm.

So, when I'm calling for people to defend their rights vigorously, I'm doing that in the context of the laws that I know, not the UK system which seems to need reform. Not that the US system of torts doesn't need some reforms as well (e.g. the matter of targeting everyone with deep pockets and getting excessive rewards beyond actual harm caused).

[kandrathe]

... absolute lack of scientific evidence against his clams.

All I have to say is...

[kandrathe]

It isn't the media that worries me. It is the widespread intrusiveness with no societal customs to manage it.

I agree, although, I am also worried about a media which now has 24x7 programming, over 1000's of channels and infinite internet content that has no compunction against broadcasting anything they deem to be newsworthy. Technology has also changed the media from one where space on a newspaper page was considered valuable, and where editors needed to consider the worthiness of an article then edit it down to its most cohesive minimal form.

As an aside, I have the same opinion about software, where the ever expanding nature of memory and disk storage has allowed software engineers to write sloppy code (bloatware). I was pretty proud of my 1980 achievement of compressing a huge word list into less than 50K bytes for a readability utility disk that needed to fit onto a 160KB 5 1/4" floppy disk. That software would allow a teacher to type in a 100 word sample of text, and would then use 6 different readability tests to analyze the text. The other difficult part for that product was that it also needed to calculate the number of syllables in words, and had to perform all these tests working to data directly on the floppy disk within 2 x 4096 byte memory segments. It was hard to make it fit, and also work.

So, I guess tight spaces force people to be more selective in what goes into that space. In the media world, the expansion into a 24 hour x 7 day news broadcast, internet, and 1000's of digital channels has only created more space, which mostly gets filled with poor quality content. This is where then our privacy is sacrificed upon the alter of newsworthiness. Because the standards of newsworthiness, and content of the news itself has fallen into the toilet.

[kandrathe]

You're claiming victim status not only for Carrie Prejean, but yourself for your traumatic time at the University of Minnesota, as a member of the "white, male, heterosexual, Christian"* minority that has been so horribly oppressed in days of late?

I'd have hoped your skin might be a little thicker than that...

-Jester

*if any of these things is inaccurate, just say so, but I think you've confirmed them all at one point or another.

Hmmm, victim? No. I was a consumer of the wrong product. I blame myself for not being a more selective shopper. In my senior year, when I had 196 credits (far more than I needed to graduate), I realized that in order to get the handful of remaining coursework I needed I would need to spend 2 more years there. So, as a savvy consumer, I transfered to a different school where I could finish in just one more year. So oddly enough I ended up as a CSci major, with enough credits for minors in philosophy, psychology, Spanish language, and studio arts. My real education was dealing with being judged by the radical bigots who hated me based on my demography. I had to laugh when I saw the news article recently where Chavez gave Obama the book, "Open Veins of Latin America", because it was required reading in 1984 for my Latin American literature class. I actually think some of my friends from that time are active in ALF and ELF, and it was the first time I became acquainted (through my more radical leftist friends purchases) with the wares of Paladin Press.

Edit: Oh, yes. White, check. European descent, check (you forgot that one). Male, check. Heterosexual, check. Christian, sort of. I would say I'm Christian(+). I often associate with Christians, but they would probably not understand the (+) aspect of my belief system. I'm pretty selective in my Christianity, and reference the philosophical aspects (e.g. do I agree with the teaching of Jesus) rather than the dogma. I also associate with Buddhists, and they are pretty understanding of most everything. I'm also a big fan of the Dalai Lama, but I wouldn't share that openly with my Christian friends. However, I understand your meaning. I believe that bigotry and discrimination are local problems that amass into national, or global problems. Jews are not usually discriminated against in Haifa, but probably wouldn't feel to comfortable in parts of Detroit or London. I was merely stating that the U of M environment is one that at the time I was there felt pretty hostile to the stereotypical white, hetero, male of European ancestry unless that male was willing to be self loathing. Luckily I wasn't a member of the the CCC (Campus Crusade for Christ) and the College Republicans, or I probably would have been assaulted on a daily basis. I do remember being frequently tagged as an FBI plant trying to infiltrate their leftist plots.

Carrie probably has issues with her contract with Miss Universe Inc. (something she chose to do), but she was the victim of libel by (even by US standards) certain mainstream media outlets (i.e. Perez Hilton, Keith Olbermann). Her medical procedure (breast implant) was private information that should not have been released by her employer, so yes, she was victimized by her employer in that case. Her modeling photographs, were under contract for a specific use, and so the people who sold her photo's were violating their contracts with her. Beyond the trite lack of impartial judging, the aftermath has resulted in libel, violations of HIPPA, and multiple breach of contract suits.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I cited the example of Michael Phelps, who surely thought he was indulging in private madness when he took a toke of marijuana at a private party. Someone he trusted? Perhaps not. But a betrayal nevertheless.

Since I'm not familiar with the circumstances, I cannot speak to the 'privateness' of that party. If it was a few hundred 'good friends' getting together, it was hardly private -- but I don't know. What I do know is my opinion about the status of marijuana -- but that's another discussion for another thread.

I am aware of few young people who have lost jobs because of pictures on FaceBook. For example, a young lady, daughter of old friends, was a camp councillor at a day camp on weekdays. She was fired because of a photo posted of her with a beer in her hand, taken at a private party on a weekend. This photo, by the way, was not at her own FaceBook page: she was merely tagged. That means that not only were her employers snoopy enough to go looking, but also that one of her 'friends' allowed them to look.

Let's boil this down to the essence. She had a beer. Someone let her employer know. Her employer fired her. You don't say, but I presume she was 'under age'.

In the first place, this was possible long before technology ('guns don't kill people . . . "). In the second place, it is about an overly moralistic society -- take what I didn't say about marijuana above and multiply it by about thousand to get my opinion on restrictions on drinking (but not on restrictions on what you are permitted to do while drinking). Third, if she was indeed under age, she needed to pay a little more attention to her chosen companions when she chooses to break the law. Finally, if she wasn't under age, she should find an ambulance chaser and sue that company out of business.

Good story, lots of issues, but technological driven loss of privacy is hardly one.

Now, pure speculation on my part, but I doubt that her "employers {were} snoopy enough to go looking". I suspect it was more along the lines of someone who knew her saw it and gossiped about it to someone else who *had* to check it out, etc., etc., 'till it finally was brought to the attention of her employers. Not technology, just good old fashioned malicious gossip.

The changes in widely spread technology have happened so fast that our culture has not evolved any ettiquette to deal with this.

The golden rule covers it all well enough -- all "etiquette" is either just a codification of its implications or a collection of arbitrary rules for identifying social inferiors.

It isn't the media that worries me. It is the widespread intrusiveness with no societal customs to manage it.

Fair enough. I haven't noticed it, but that doesn't mean it is not there.

--Pete

[--Pete]

hi,

Let's examine it carefully;

Let's not, it's more fun to just speak from ignorance :whistling:

So, when I'm calling for people to defend their rights vigorously, . . .

Perhaps, and I'm feeling too lazy to go back and check this, but it sure sounded to me that you were going well beyond defending existing rights (which I agree with) and proposing the adoption of a whole new bunch of 'rights'. My point is that the individual's right to privacy and the population's right to free speech will always be in conflict. Where the balance point should be is a matter of opinion, and in mine, we're pretty close to it. That's because the present status was arrived at over the years and not on the basis of a single case. It is a pragmatic example of Oliver Wendell Holmes statement, “The law should be stable, but should never stand still.”

And, between privacy and free speech, only one is protected by the Bill of Rights.

Not that the US system of torts doesn't need some reforms as well (e.g. the matter of targeting everyone with deep pockets and getting excessive rewards beyond actual harm caused).

This is a problem, though not as bad as the media makes it out to be. The outlandish awards are few compared to the number of cases (the majority of which are settle out of court) and often trimmed back on appeal. If punitive damages went to the government rather than to the plaintiff, much of the excesses would be eliminated. After all, if Joe damages Bill and is punished, it doesn't follow that Bill should be rewarded.

--Pete