Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nonameiguess 958 days ago
I'm not an attorney, but I think a lot of the Internet misunderstands the law. It is legal to do this, apparently, but that doesn't mean the court is saying it's okay or they should do this, and it certainly doesn't mean anyone would be okay with you doing it. But if you managed to, then yes, it would apparently be legal. The court can only rule on what the law actually says and it says you only have grounds to sue once you've suffered an actual injury, not because the party you're trying to sue has done someone that might harm you in the future.

This is frankly a shortcoming of trying to use civil law for something like this. As far as I'm aware, this is nearly always the case that you have no grounds to sue unless you've suffered quantifiable monetary damage from someone's actions. If we just want this kind of thing to be generally illegal, then it needs to be made illegal according to criminal law or it needs to violate some law overseen by a government regulatory body with the power to levy its own fines.
2 comments
SoftTalker 958 days ago
Yes, civil law is not about deciding legality. It's about deciding liability. And to do that, there has to be a harm demonstrated. The plaintiff could not do this, so the case was thrown out.
link
SenAnder 958 days ago
> It is legal to do this, apparently

I am extremely skeptical of this, no matter what this judge says. This seems to be a clear case of illegal wiretapping [1]. Having an illegal act perpetrated upon one, whether it is wiretapping or assault, seems a very clear "injury". It is baffling that there would have to be some kind of financial price attached to be recognized as harm by a court. A disgusting reduction of justice to mere finance, something I would expect from the cartoonishly greedy Ferengi of Star Trek, than a real court.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiretapping#United_States

link
mistrial9 958 days ago
agree and - the crux here appears to be .. when you are in a moving vehicle on public roads then you have no expectation of privacy -> slippery slope -> license plate readers run by govt 24x7; license plate readers run by parking lots or retail shopping malls; interception of cell traffic via stinger units in strategic locations; interception of the driver's cell phone communications.. etc.

Gov Gavin Newsom preparing to run for President, is OK'ing these uses quickly and without public discussion

link