10. The Boundaries of Cybersecurity: Ethics, Rights, and Laws 271 How would a judge rule regarding Charlie’s reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the data that Alice collected? It is generally not possible to know how a judge would rule—the details of every case are unique and every judge is different. The case for Charlie having a reasonable expectation of privacy generally increases as you go down the list (see Table 10.4), but perhaps surprisingly, it is possible that none of this data would be admissible as evidence. Charlie’s lawyer would likely make a strong case for Charlie having a reasonable expectation of privacy, especially since no conspicuous banners, public notices, or labels existed. Courts generally rule on the side of protecting rights—the courts take the rights of citizens very seriously. In this situation we are assuming that law enforcement did not have a warrant; if a warrant had been issued, all of this data would be fair game. A warrant is an order signed by a judge giving law enforcement the authority to search and seize evidence. The Fourth Amendment does not say that a person’s privacy can never be violated. It states that there must be probable cause and that a warrant must be issued before such a search can take place. When a warrant is issued, the right to privacy over the times and locations outlined in the warrant is forfeited. Table 10.4 Charlie’s reasonable expectation of privacy at work ratings. Charlie’s office phone metadata is the most likely to be admissible since courts have ruled phone call metadata does not require a warrant—however, recordings of the calls (if they had existed) definitely would not be admissible. Social media posts are shared in a very public forum, but with only select people—however, the way they were collected by Alice would likely make them inadmissible in this case. So what about Alice’s role in this? Did she do anything illegal? Alice as a university employee cannot violate Charlie’s privacy rights, and she did not break any laws because she had authorized access to the computer systems. If Alice was officially deputized as an agent of the state, her actions would have violated Charlie’s Constitutional rights. The
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=