Legal question

[.... callchet ....]

Invasion of privacy. Your eyes are receivers of light. You don't look into anything, light shines in your eyes and your eyes convert the light into

signals and send it to your brain. So is there really such a thing as invasion of privacy ? If you don't want to waste brain matter on this,

that's ok.

[Ian David]

1. Your brain directs your eyes where to look.

I suggest you stop sneaking around windows.

[varkam]

Are you high? eom

[elleng]

2. Yes there is.

The legal system won't put up with such sham arguments.

[happyslug]

3. Lets look back at some common laws rules, rules developed over the last 1000 years

Basically the Common Law rule said you could NOT look into someone's house BUT anything else was fair game. Furthermore if a window or Door was open and you could look into the house, what you see from that point was fair game. You can NOT enter the house or report what you saw if you entered the house without permission (Through an exception existed if you saw criminal activities occurring). Basically everything was fair game. The big exception was inside your home.

In fact people had the right to enter land your owned except for your home, any other locked building (i.e. your barn) and the "close" of your home i.e. what we would call your yard, any other land was open to anyone to cross subject to the landowner's right to sue for any damages caused by such people crossing their land. As to "No Trespassing" signs, those were NOT legal till about the 1890s, when Laws were passed making it illegal to enter the property of other if they posted signs against such entrance. I would like to report that this was passed for Privacy reason but that would be false, it was an anti-union act, to prevent union organizers onto the property of the mines and factories that the union wanted to organize but the owners of the mines and factories did not. Some people called this the Anti-Mother Jones act for Mother Jones thought nothing of going into the mines of the US and try to talk people to join the UMW. After it was passed, while in her 60s, she had to walk in an creek that went through the property owned by a mine with her feet in the water, for Pennsylvania law called such creeks "Highways" and thus the No Trespassing signs did NOT apply to it.

Back to Privacy, the general rule if you or anyone else could have seen the act, it is NOT covered by any rule of Privacy. What was covered was what people would expect NOT to be seen by others i.e. what occurred in your home or other lockable building (i.e. an office). Most laws regarding Privacy were passed for other reasons. Juvenal law was passed to get such cases from being in front of Juries, right after women were permitted on juries. One theory is prosecutors thought women would NOT want to convict such people so wanted such cases taken away from Juries, but no way that could pass without some sort of reference to protecting such children. Thus privacy of Juveniles was the price of removing such cases from Juries. In my own practice I have found that concerns of Privacy of Juveniles had more to do with protecting some adult (Teacher, Parents etc) then protecting the Child. Thus the rule again is NOT preventing you from seeing something, but to protect people affects by that sight.

Privacy was a minor concern under the Common law, the concern was more protecting people from getting their hands on records of other people NOT from seeing what people did. Thus the protecting of what was in your home, but NOT what you saw inside the home if invited in or was visible from the outside.

[.... callchet ....]

4. Thank you

I am a very technical person and always extrapolate ideas to their extreme to test their validity. I was examining electronic signals from

satellites. You can't stop those signals from hitting your property much the same way you can't stop light from hitting your eyes. I was wondering

how companies can radiate your property without your permission. Then profit from that radiation. It would seem to me from your explanation ( and I

really appreciate your time and knowledge) that you would have legal rights to do whatever you wanted with those signals ( that are radiated on your

property without your permission ) as long as you didn't relate their content to someone else. I don't like the way that your rights are violated so

easily. Thanks again.

[Piewhacket]

5. In the US, yes.

That answers your question.

There is such a thing as "privacy" as a combination of legal rights. There is a fundamental
privacy right in the US Constitution, and many states also include privacy rights in their
own constitution and laws. Violation of privacy rights of another can result in both civil
and criminal penalties.

A person who has been accused of violating privacy rights of another probably needs a lawyer,
particularly if it is a criminal case. A person who is considering doing something that may
violate the rights of another, including privacy rights, should consult a lawyer beforehand.

The laws concerning this are complex, but electronic surveillance is included in the things
that may concern privacy rights. Wiretapping, for example, is a felony in most states.

Wiretapping would involve, for example, attaching a device to phone lines in order to
overhear or record the conversation of another without permission. A crime is committed when that is
attempted or accomplished. It is of no real consequence or defense whether an overheard conversation was
understood, or a taped conversation was ever played, vibrated the air, traveled to someone's ear,
converted to brain signals, and comprehended by a brain. Such hyper-analysis would be of no
interest to a court, and reliance on a esoteric philosophy of being will be of little to no
benefit to a defense, more likely the opposite except in cases of mental defect.

Enjoy.