[radu_floricica]

First link is actually extending privacy outside the house. So it's very much not making fences fuzzy.

The second link is basically about the wavelength you use when looking at the outside of the house. Not surprisingly, it doesn't matter. This is common sense, not a revelation.

A challenge to my comment would be if a house had a picket fence, somebody came by and took a hoe from the yard, and a judge said "nah, it's not theft, the fence was too low, all he had to do was reach out and take it". That would be a proper counter-argument.

[ColoursofOSINT]

What an interesting response.

You say essentially state that my information is not a “proper counter-argument.”, while in the same response argue that I am wrong because this is “this is common sense”, rather than any real response.

The court recognized there was a fence for privacy, but that is was applicable to certain situations, for example, the purpose of the recording. So it would be fine to record someone if they were in the background of your picture, but not if was for sexual purposes. Hence the numerous criteria to be considered. So its very much about making fences fuzzy, since they only apply to certain types of filming, the purpose, personal attributes....etc.

Thermal imaging and its effects on the fourth are not common sense. Thermal imaging was initially ruled to be fine, then appealed, ruled fine, then it ruled to not be fine, but only with a 5 - 4 ruling. With the dissenting opinion including “Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building.”

All you would have to do is read the Wikipedia article I gave to see that “Scalia's phrases "sense-enhancing technology" and "device that is not in general public use" in the Kyllo ruling have become influential in later rulings on police search procedures, but in an inconsistent fashion.[22] Several scholars and legal analysts noted the ambiguity in Scalia's use of those phrases.

To use your example, a police officer could “reach over” and see the illegal activity with his own eyes through a hole in your fence and that is legal. However, they could not use binoculars to get over your fence from a public area.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/telescop...

[radu_floricica]

I'm not at my best to argue this, since it's evening here and I had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. But my first instinct is to comment on how the case you're describing is at the edge of the law, where things are naturally fuzzy, as most borders are. So we're talking about an edge case of a metaphor - quite a bit removed from the main topic.

I stand by my previous example - a proper counter-example would be somebody reaching over the fence and stealing something. My main argument is that any password signifies a fence - be it a tall wall or a picket fence. Going beyond it is clearly not ok. Law and custom carve exceptions for white hats looking for security flaws - but both law and custom also specify how those white hats are supposed to behave. And a 3 day ultimatum followed by public disclosure is not it.

[ColoursofOSINT]

> I'm not at my best to argue this, since it's evening here and I had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner.

And you probably shouldn't be, this is a internet discussion, don't let it interrupt your life.

My argument was not that the password wasn't a line not to be crossed, but that laws can be based on a sliding scale.