"reasonable expectation of privacy"

id like to say that this isnt any kind of sympathy points i am looking for or posting because i feel i was wronged, its simply an opinion i was looking for.
second, general voice chat is only captured in a 50 meter distance.
third "Remotely monitoring conversations" doesnt specify voice conversations and the general tab seems to apply to text conversations.
fourth, the relay stream was public for a short time and reversed to private after an agreement was made.
fifth, perhaps some of you may not think its all too interesting to listen to specific general publlic voice chat as i do, but thats what i like to do.
and sixth, id llike to stress here that these public voice conversations are not being "recorded" as some of you have said, i dont have a desire to waste disk space and time to do such a thing.
some of you may have an ALT you may log on a laptop aside from your desktop, you may put your ALT in a particular sim to "watch" that sim, to monitor it, how is what i am doing any different besides relaying general public voice chat remotely in order to listen to it ?
yes, i could have just used a laptop and taken it with me to where ever i go in order to perform the same task, but what for when i can simply open windows media player and connect to it ?
what if a Linden told you its wrong to use FRAPS to record what other people are doing, and you post this captured video on youtube ?
many people do this.
i got my opinions from many of you, so thanks.

then it cant be classified as "wiretapping" if the conversation is taking place in the public, it is not illegal to place a wireless mic in a public place, it is illegal to divulge any private information captured over this mic for personal gain.
the same information applies to listening to the police dept on your radio scanner.
i seriously doubt private information of this type would be spoken in general public voice chat.
what you do with overheard private information in a public area is your business.
if you are in a sim with 50 agents and there are 40 of them in the active speakers list, how do you expect "reasonable privacy" ?

there is no way to connect or tap into a private voice stream directly, its not a security issue.
LL or a Linden does not have the authority or power to forcefully disconnect you from a voice stream.

This assumes that Vivox owns all the rights that may be involved, and that no one else has any legal right over this. It also assumes there are no other laws limiting such usage. It's not at all clear to me that these assumptions are correct.


I don't know whether a live voice feed is subject to copyright, or who the owner would be if it were recorded. However, I'll remind you that copyright notices aren't necessary, but putting something into the public domain does require an explicit act (or a long wait). You can't draw any conclusions from Vivox's silence on the subject.


It's not generated by Vivox. It's generated by the people speaking. If anyone owns the content, the speakers do, unless there's a contract specifying otherwise. And remember the SL TOS don't claim ownership of users' intellectual property.


That seems unfair. I don't expect the average user to spend any time learning how the voice chat is implemented or what the risks may be. Likewise for audio streams. It may be common knowledge among regular readers, but I don't see why the average user should be expected to know that SL doesn't own the servers that provide music audio.

Here in California, where Linden Lab resides, it is illegal to record conversations of two people unless one of the two parties has agreed. I don't know how much this applies to other countries or even states, but I wouldn't expect LL to make those changes.

as i have stated multiple times in this thread, what i am doing is not recording public voice chat.
i have no interest or desire to waste disk space to record public conversations.

I don't know what a lawyer would say about this, but it sounds extremely disingenuous to me.

According to Mr. Maximus' profile, he is streaming public voice conversations from Ahern.

In addition to the creepiness, peeping-Tom factor. I expect that he has obtained no releases from citizens whose voices he's been 'rebroadcasting". Once conversations change from 'in person' to 'broadcast via media (auditory or visual)" the rules change and the media operator becomes subject to the same mandates any other 'candid camera' wanna-be is subject to. To wit, civil suits from those citizens whose voice is retransmitted to the public without their consent. Real dollars could definitely be in the offing for injured parties.

Determination of "public" is something the courts will decide. In this era of infringement of privacy by the government at every turn, I doubt a jury would be tolerant of splitting hairs over whether his definition of "public" is valid.

Does Vivox know what he's doing with this? I doubt it. It opens them up to legal action as well if they did and did nothing about it.

when you take a photograph of an object in public and that photograph has people in it, do you obtain a release from those parties involved in the photograph, are you a "peeping tom", do people consider you "creepy"? - when you interview someone with a microphone in public and other peoples voices are captured during the interview, do you obtain a release from those parties involved ?i dont see public voice chat in SL as being "in person" when its a group of agents conversing publicly, does your statement also apply to those who have "webcams" set up in publlic places that are "broadcast" over the internet ? - what about the "beach camera" in New Jersey (http://www.nj.com/shore/pointpleasantcam/) that you can remotely control over the internet ? - does that "violate" the privacy concerns of those on the beach wearing skimpy bikinis, that the user with the remotely controlled camera can zoom into at 50x ? - i have been there and i dont see any notices on the beach to anyone indicating that they may be on "candid camera". - if that statement you spelled out is fact, then let me leave now to go file litigation with the state of New Jersey for monetary compensation on behalf of my privacy being violated over the internet through their "candid camera"i doubt a jury would even consider what is happening here a "violation" of "reasonable expectation of privacy" when SL is no better than a public chatroom on AOL, except it is "virtual".i am quite sure Vivox researched this possibility before they leased their voice service to SL and a result, indemnified themselves from litigation that might arise out of anyone attempting to file litigation over privacy concerns, in fact, i could easily file litigation with Vivox now since there is no provision in their TOS stating whether i do or do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" using their service to converse publicly or privately should my conversation fall into the wrong hands.

whether i or another agent chooses to provide a "link" in their profile does not necessitate that the agent who has the "link" in the profile is indeed the person who is operating the "link".

use the napster court case as an example, i shouldnt have to post the PDF here for it.

Interesting thread. So I thought I'd toss my take on it. I can't say I find what the OP is doing is right or wrong. It appears it's just a form of entertainment of some type for him. And for that I can see absolutely nothing wrong with his "hobby".........no worse than what many of us here in the forums do when we lurk (some of us just enjoy doing that). I do, however, find that some of the responses (actually most of them so far) are just a little over the top. It seems some have refused to read what the OP has stated several times about the conversations NOT being recorded........the listening is done remotely for the OP's enjoyment. That may be weird (it sure seems that way to me) but I can't say it is wrong, or even close to be illegal in anyway (both RL or TOS violations). Yet, some seem intent on spouting some real life law, copyright enfringement, "expectations of privacy", etc.

How many people have had time to kill waiting for some appointment (or someone to show up) and have gone to a resturant.......get your cup of coffee and sit quietly in your corner booth listening to the conversations of the other patrons? I know I have. I bet most (if not all) of you have too. That is basically what the OP is doing........just listening. Maybe killing time. Or perhaps he's prepping for a book he's wanting to write. We don't know. We don't need to know either.

Evidently Linden Lab doesn't think he's done anything wrong either (though it seems the OP had to convince them of that fact.......that same "rush to judgement" that many here have displayed in their responses).

If you don't want to be eavesdropped on while in SL (or any other place) then make sure you are in a truly private place (and SL is about a private place as Disneyland). You don't want to ever run the chance of being video tapped or have your voice recorded in RL you might find the best place for you is inside your home with the doors locked. It is not illegal for someone the randomly (or even selectively) record people in public places.....and there is no requirement to obtain prior written permission from the people being recorded (or eavesdropped on). That only comes into play when those recordings are used in some way that it is put into the public domain. The OP has stated he does not do that........he's in the clear unless he's lying. And there is no indication that he is doing that.

The short of it is there is no expectation of privacy in SL. If you are one who does expect that then you are being more than just a little foolish. Spout laws all you want......your not going to win in any court in the United States. Being indigant about someone "exploiting" your conversations only shows your ignorance of facts pertaining to rights to pricacy.

That's my take.

whether i am providing a link to the public voice chat over the internet is, in my opinion, no different than logging onto SL and going to the same sim and listening to the public conversation there.
lots of people take public shoutcast streams and use them for different purposes such as music streams for land or relaying them for other reasons.
what is the difference here ?
i have no interest in recording public voice chat, nor do i have interest in private direct voice communications.
certain music players such as winamp have the capability to record shoutcast streams, who is to say that users receiving public shoutcast streams are not recording them ?
who is to say that certain agents within public voice chat range are not recording the conversations ?
the obvious answer is: you dont know
what is public domain is just that, public.
in the 1970's, there was once phone booths that you could close the door to afford a "reasonable expectation of privacy", i dont see any "booths" today.

That depends on state law. There have been people arrested and convicted for audio recording of conversations, even on their own property.

its funny how many have "threadcrapped" my post, but the obvious still remains:
public is not private and a "reasonable expectation or privacy" cannot be afforded in the public domain.

What about the fact, mentioned in TexasKat's post #32, that the OP's Profile states that he is 'live streaming public conversations' from a sim at a website, the URL of which is also in his profile?

That isn't entertainment just for him.

The fact that it's not recorded seems irrelevant, here.


I do agree with everything you said about people in SL needing to be aware that they don't have privacy (though I think this isn't as well-publicized as it needs to be).

being that SL is a virtual world and is accessible from the world on the internet itself, "state laws" would not apply here as there is no law that defines the use of SL within the states.

how could it be not well publicized, even for a "newbie" who hears other agents speaking, should know that "hey, theres more than one person talking here, this isnt private".
can anyone honestly tell me that they heard a "newbie" giving out his/her personal information over public voice ?
how many times have <i>you</i> given out your personal information to the public ?

Actually, yes, photos and interviews DO require releases. If individuals do not obtain them, they can be subject to court action. Ask professional photographers.

So yeah, it's creepy in the same way that panty cams were creepy.



You'll note that there is no sound. Still, the webcam is on 'iffy' ground as it is. If NJ.com rebroadcast conversations among beachgoers, you can bet your bottom dollar (literally) it would have been ripped off the web after the first lawsuit.



Speculation about what you think Vivox 'believes" isn't relevant. Since Vivox doesn't seem to have a Terms of Service agreement concerning the rebroadcast of conversations using their product, I have asked them to elaborate on whether they consider this a violation of their terms of service or whether SL's TOS covers it.



For the rest, since you are the 'agent' who was potentially banned for this practice (and you came here complaining about it), I can only conclude you were the offending party. If not, this whole discussion is moot.

PS.

I noticed the "ahern" page has been removed from the http://nyc.myvnc.com/ site. Since you have proudly proclaimed on the site used to rebroadcast SL conversations from Ahern, you can't possibly believe anyone here thinks you are not the individual directly responsible for this.

When a newbie hears other agents speaking, the newbie also sees that the agents are nearby (either through seeing the avatars or seeing the green dots on the map). Thus the newbie gains the impression 'if there's no other avatar nearby, then my conversation can't be overheard.

What's been discussed in this thread is something else (streaming audio from beyond the visual range that newbies have come to think of as the range at which they can be overheard).








I don't get the impression that the issue here is 'giving out [someone's] personal information'.

releases are only required only if the content is used in the manner where monetary compensation is awarded for its use such as a movie or a newspaper.







i certainly do not believe that this difference would apply in this case, audio and/or video, it is still the same thing.







and i am sure they (Vivox) indemnified and released themselves of any litigation that may come out of the use of their service.







how would you know that "EliteData Maximus" is the agent who got banned for this practice ? it could be another agent or any agent you do not know of.



PS.



the "Ahern" page is not reachable by the main page unless you know the explicit link to it. - the main page rebroadcasts police dept communications and has been since 9/5/04 without any ramifications, because the police communications broadcasts are public domain and the website does not make any monetary compensation from the police dept or its listeners to the website.

that does not make sense, if there are other avatars within range that he/she does not know, the conversation can be overheard, regardless of who and how many are within range



then think deeper, perhaps another agent or more than one agent within voice chat range has 20 friends over listening to the conversation, perhaps they could be recording the voice chat or using it for other purposes, its something that isnt known. - i wouldnt expect a newbie to know the range at which voice chat would work in the first place, none the less how to show the "active speakers list" (i didnt when i first joined)

















its not an issue of whether someone does or does not give out personal information in public domain, its the fact that users here in this thread seem to believe that public chat is private information.

as a further note, none of what is being done here with this public voice chat is being used for personal gain in any manner including monetary, so you can all throw that theory out the window.
if 1000 agents had a link in their profile to the stream, how could you tell who is providing it ?
whether i implied as if i am the individual operating the stream or not and whether i have a link to it in my profile or not, does not necessarily mean i am the individual operating it.
provide the solid hard facts and proof before you assume it is.

Not so.... people in photographs merely have to be identifable. "Monetary gain" has nothing to do with it.




Actually it isn't at all. Video taping has been tested in the courts, audio is almost always specifically excluded. Voice over IP is an "electronic communication".

"Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it.

"Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.

Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication."


http://www.rcfp.org/taping/



"I am sure"... yeah, that'll stand up in court. Seriously state and federal law trumps anyone's TOS.




Your website, the link in your profile "http://nyc.myvnc.com/voice/ahern.html"

That page has disappeared, but the tracks are stlll there.

http://nyc.myvnc.com/voice/

The site was created by you... says so on the page. So unless someone has hijacked your server (farfetched), you've been pwned.

PS.




Rebroadcasting non-public domain conversations isn't the same thing. In case you're not aware "public domain" and "public" aren't the same either.

If you had already made up your mind that it was perfectly legal and within your rights to do what you are doing... then why this thread? Why the query in the first post as to "exactly how can there be a "reasonable expectation of privacy" if voice chat is conversed in the general public ?"

It seems to me that you had already made up your mind on the subject and really was not looking for opinions, just maybe some folks to agree with you, because maybe... you were having doubts?

Not sure, as some posts seems to be full of doubt, and other posts it seems you know what you feel is right and wrong, etc.


I do not know much about the law of this type, and do not know if it is legally right or wrong.

however for me, it would be morally wrong to do such a thing. I can not help but wonder who it is that you are spying on and why.

If not spying on someone, then why the fascination with Ahern???

I'm not sure if you genuinely misunderstood what I'd written, or if the lack of comprehension is a pretense, used as a diversionary tactic. Here's what you were responding to:

Quote:
When a newbie hears other agents speaking, the newbie also sees that the agents are nearby (either through seeing the avatars or seeing the green dots on the map). Thus the newbie gains the impression 'if there's no other avatar nearby, then my conversation can't be overheard.
............................

Notice that there was nothing about 'who' the avatars might be, or 'how many' there might be. Let alone whether or not the avatar 'does not know' other avatars.

Assuming you genuinely misunderstood: The point was that your earlier defense (that avatars should conclude that they have no expectation of privacy when they overhear the audio generated by other avatars they see around them) is completely invalid in this case, because what's being discussed is NOT audio that's streamed from avatars who can see the agent doing the streaming, but from avatars who see no agent nearby.

so video/photographs is not "electronic communication" ? aha, so much for security cameras and police dash cameras, along with football/baseball/basketball/hockey events, those who get to be "on television or radio" or newspapers/magazines by photography without their knowledge or consent. - i suppose you go on the notion that when you walk/drive/ride a bike outside, you expect a "reasonable expectation of privacy".







what you provided here implies intercepting "phone call" type of communications (in-person & one-party) for the purpose of recording them - well the agent happens to be a part of the public conversation taking place at this sim and, additionally, these conversations taking place are not "phone call" types, "in-person" or "one party" as suggested and required by federal law.















why would it not ? communications through Vivox provided for SL are not "secure" in any form, so therefore litigation made on the basis of expecting reasonable privacy through the use of their service to communicate in SL would be moot now, wouldnt it.

















oh really ? the main site may have been created by me, but that does not mean i am hosting it and that does not mean i created the link that you typed incorrectly to begin with, so with that said, the only person that got "pwned" is you.







PS.



















thats another debate for another time - the point is simple, its public and thats that.