"In order to claim damages, there must be a breach in the duty of the defendant towards the plaintiff, which results in an injury"
Basically the judge is saying the plaintiff didn't establish the basic foundation of a tort case. He's not saying this isn't wrong, he's saying they didn't present the case in a way that proves it.
It's not enough to say "you shouldn't be doing this"--even if that's true.
the question here is, on it's face does an invasion of privacy constitute an injury? I'd argue that yes, it does. Privacy has inherent value, and that value is lost the moment that private data is exposed. That's the injury that needs to be redressed, regardless of whether or how the exposed data is used after the exposure. There could be additional injury in how the data is used, and that would have to be adjudicated and compensated separately, but losing the assurance that my data can never be used against me because it is only know to me is absolutely an injury in and of itself.
For privacy to have inherent value, it first must be an established, inherent right. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't talk about it to my knowledge. I've always inferred that our rights against unlawful search and seizure basically encapsulate the concept, but whatever.
The rights in the fourth amendment are generally a limit on the government, not what a third party does when it has a TOS/contract with you allowing it to do things.
It sounds like you'd make a better lawyer than whoever brought this case.
I agree with you for whatever it's worth.
I mean how did I get checks from Google and Facebook for violating privacy then?
The lawyers proved the case
Those checks go to the larger YouTube channels, not people like you and me. Did you mean something different?
/s
Sure except under this logic there's no injury to someone peering through your windows. After all they didn't do anything else...
Nice take.
I myself am fine with the ruling, but only if we get a full-ownership deal on the car, and can legally completely gut and replace parts that do that. Also, the car should be sold with a warning label regarding these issues.
Take a page from the conservative/GOP playbook and just find an activity judge who will wholesale accept your fabricated claim and provide a favorite judgement.
Isn't this just a basic legal concept?
"In order to claim damages, there must be a breach in the duty of the defendant towards the plaintiff, which results in an injury"
Basically the judge is saying the plaintiff didn't establish the basic foundation of a tort case. He's not saying this isn't wrong, he's saying they didn't present the case in a way that proves it.
It's not enough to say "you shouldn't be doing this"--even if that's true.
the question here is, on it's face does an invasion of privacy constitute an injury? I'd argue that yes, it does. Privacy has inherent value, and that value is lost the moment that private data is exposed. That's the injury that needs to be redressed, regardless of whether or how the exposed data is used after the exposure. There could be additional injury in how the data is used, and that would have to be adjudicated and compensated separately, but losing the assurance that my data can never be used against me because it is only know to me is absolutely an injury in and of itself.
For privacy to have inherent value, it first must be an established, inherent right. Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't talk about it to my knowledge. I've always inferred that our rights against unlawful search and seizure basically encapsulate the concept, but whatever.
The rights in the fourth amendment are generally a limit on the government, not what a third party does when it has a TOS/contract with you allowing it to do things.
It sounds like you'd make a better lawyer than whoever brought this case.
I agree with you for whatever it's worth.
I mean how did I get checks from Google and Facebook for violating privacy then?
The lawyers proved the case
Those checks go to the larger YouTube channels, not people like you and me. Did you mean something different?
/s
Sure except under this logic there's no injury to someone peering through your windows. After all they didn't do anything else...
Nice take.
I myself am fine with the ruling, but only if we get a full-ownership deal on the car, and can legally completely gut and replace parts that do that. Also, the car should be sold with a warning label regarding these issues.
Take a page from the conservative/GOP playbook and just find an activity judge who will wholesale accept your fabricated claim and provide a favorite judgement.