• ConstableJelly@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am a total ignoramus about law, but this sounds more like a legislative failure than a judicial one.

    But the appellate judge ruled Tuesday that the interception and recording of mobile phone activity did not meet the Washington Privacy Act’s standard that a plaintiff must prove that “his or her business, his or her person, or his or her reputation” has been threatened.

    If we had comprehensive federal data privacy law, then we wouldn’t have to challenge these practices against wet-noodle state laws that weren’t actually designed for it, right?

    • astraeus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, Federal law is pretty lax on any privacy protections. You would think that wiretapping laws would carry over into digital communications such as cellular usage, but I guess that doesn’t make much sense to the legal experts that run this country.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      i hate it but It also is user choice, the car and phone ask what connectivity you want. Even adter pairing you can tell your device what to allow to BT interface. You agree to the tranafer unfortunately

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah. I agree. the court is clearing telling people that if they want privacy they should hold the phone up to their ear or hold it with one hand in front of their face while responding to text messages. we are just the best country.

        • Crotaro@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I know I’m arguing a completely different issue here than what the article/post is about, but if a call is so important that you can’t take it after your drive, then maybe the prudent thing would be to halt the car and take the call without sacrificing your own and others’ safety due to the loss in focus.

          • HubertManne@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean personally I agree. I don’t like smart phones anyway due to privacy issues but have one for work. Realistically though society has to deal with what the average person is going to do and if the laws don’t support the best good (which in this case I would say keeping motor vehicle deaths and injuries to the most minimum possible). I mean if things were based on a personal level I would severly curtail the right to use a motor vehicle but oh boy most folks would not like that.

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I actually didn’t realize there were settings for that, so I would imagine most people don’t, either. Thanks for bringing it up. I don’t want my car reading my text messages even if it’s not saving/selling them.

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most people just hit OK on the console when pairing, and the default is auto import messages, email and contacts. You can decline there, but then text reply via console can be limited, since it wont show incoming and previous. And yeah on phone side if you select it you can chose what BT mode to use when paired. But I doubt most people even check it.