Hijexx wrote:
Acidus wrote:
News Alert to all your 16 and 17 year olds out there: You can bang, but you cannot take pictures of it.
Looks like they were using this to set an example. They were convicted not necessarily for what they did, but for what they might have done. There was no proof of intention, but I guess the court saw an opportunity to set a precedent.
Minority opinion:
The critical point in this case is that the child intended to keep the photographs private. She did not attempt to exploit anyone or to embarrass anyone. I think her expectation of privacy in the photographs was reasonable. Certainly, an argument could be made that she was foolish to expect that, but the expectation of a 16-year-old cannot be measured by the collective wisdom of appellate judges who have no emotional connection to the event. Perhaps if the child had as much time to reflect on these events, she would have eventually concluded, as the majority did, that there were ways in which these photos might have been unintentionally disclosed. That does not make her expectation of privacy unreasonable.
So, what they're really saying here is that the website you just bought something from with your credit card has no expectation to privacy of your billing information, because it was stored on a computer.
