Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #723 > unrolled thread

Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private "Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@csbsju.edu> - 2014-02-22 13:40 -0600
    Re: Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-22 22:07 +0000
    Re: Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-23 09:29 +0000
      Re: Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-23 10:11 +0000
        Re: Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private "Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@csbsju.edu> - 2014-02-24 01:24 -0600
      Re: Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private cykros@devio.us - 2014-02-24 19:35 +0000
        Re: Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-24 22:13 +0000
          Re: Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-24 23:16 +0000
            Re: Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-25 08:58 +0000
              Re: Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private "Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@csbsju.edu> - 2014-02-25 20:17 -0600
              Re: Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-27 02:13 +0000

#723 — Judge Says Driver's License Data Not Private

A federal judge in Minnesota at the district court level threw out three 
lawsuits about government employees looking at driver's license 
information, in alleged violation of the (federal) Driver's Privacy 
Protection Act. His reasoning is apparently:

1. Height, weight, eye color, address, etc. is personal but not private.

2. Information voluntarily given to third parties has no privacy 
protection.

3. The plaintiffs failed to show that the government workers did not have 
permissible purpose.

Article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: 
http://www.startribune.com/local/246622531.html

Discuss.


-- 
Elizabeth T. Knuth
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/
Slashdot Beta delenda est!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#736

In article
<20140222-194019.812.0@Elizabeth-T.xKnuth.news.eternal-september.org>,
Elizabeth T. Knuth <eknuth@csbsju.edu> wrote:

> A federal judge in Minnesota at the district court level threw out three 
> lawsuits about government employees looking at driver's license 
> information, in alleged violation of the (federal) Driver's Privacy 
> Protection Act. His reasoning is apparently:
> 
> 1. Height, weight, eye color, address, etc. is personal but not private.
> 
> 2. Information voluntarily given to third parties has no privacy 
> protection.
> 
> 3. The plaintiffs failed to show that the government workers did not have 
> permissible purpose.
> 
> Article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: 
> http://www.startribune.com/local/246622531.html
> 
> Discuss.

Can't be bothered. What goes on in a strange foreign country
interesteth me not.

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#757

On 2014-02-22, Elizabeth T. Knuth <eknuth@csbsju.edu> wrote:
> A federal judge in Minnesota at the district court level threw out three 
> lawsuits about government employees looking at driver's license 
> information, in alleged violation of the (federal) Driver's Privacy 
> Protection Act. His reasoning is apparently:
>
> 1. Height, weight, eye color, address, etc. is personal but not private.
>
> 2. Information voluntarily given to third parties has no privacy 
> protection.
>
> 3. The plaintiffs failed to show that the government workers did not have 
> permissible purpose.
>
> Article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: 
> http://www.startribune.com/local/246622531.html
>
> Discuss.
>
Well, I'll bite, but it's a lazy bite because it seems like too much
work to go research the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.  So,
we're keeping Slashdot alive here by continuing to refuse to read the
F'ing article.

Seems like this judge is on shaky ground - this case will go above him
close to immediately.  And "info given voluntarily to 3rd parties" -
WTF?  You're not exactly "voluntarily" giving out information if you
apply for a driver's license; it's an obligation and a federal
requirement.  That's some sketchy reasoning.

Post this same thing to alt.privacy and watch the place explode.  Those
guys eat this stuff up.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#774

In article <lecf28$g80$3@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>
wrote:

> Seems like this judge is on shaky ground - this case will go above him
> close to immediately.  And "info given voluntarily to 3rd parties" -
> WTF?  You're not exactly "voluntarily" giving out information if you
> apply for a driver's license; it's an obligation and a federal
> requirement.  That's some sketchy reasoning.

You're only obliged to give such information to the state if you apply
for a driving licence. No one is required by law to have such a
licence, so any application for such a licence is entirely voluntary.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#827

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 10:11:37 +0000, Tim Streater wrote,

> In article <lecf28$g80$3@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Seems like this judge is on shaky ground - this case will go above him
>> close to immediately.  And "info given voluntarily to 3rd parties" -
>> WTF?  You're not exactly "voluntarily" giving out information if you
>> apply for a driver's license; it's an obligation and a federal
>> requirement.  That's some sketchy reasoning.
>
> You're only obliged to give such information to the state if you apply
> for a driving licence. No one is required by law to have such a
> licence, so any application for such a licence is entirely voluntary.

Or if you want to vote and don't drive (in some states).

But this information isn't being "voluntarily" given to a third party at 
all. It is provided to the Department of Public Safety by the applicant.


-- 
Elizabeth T. Knuth
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/
Slashdot Beta delenda est!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-22, Elizabeth T. Knuth <eknuth@csbsju.edu> wrote:
>> A federal judge in Minnesota at the district court level threw out three 
>> lawsuits about government employees looking at driver's license 
>> information, in alleged violation of the (federal) Driver's Privacy 
>> Protection Act. His reasoning is apparently:
>>
>> 1. Height, weight, eye color, address, etc. is personal but not private.
>>
>> 2. Information voluntarily given to third parties has no privacy 
>> protection.
>>
>> 3. The plaintiffs failed to show that the government workers did not have 
>> permissible purpose.
>>
>> Article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: 
>> http://www.startribune.com/local/246622531.html
>>
>> Discuss.
>>
> Well, I'll bite, but it's a lazy bite because it seems like too much
> work to go research the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.  So,
> we're keeping Slashdot alive here by continuing to refuse to read the
> F'ing article.
> 
> Seems like this judge is on shaky ground - this case will go above him
> close to immediately.  And "info given voluntarily to 3rd parties" -
> WTF?  You're not exactly "voluntarily" giving out information if you
> apply for a driver's license; it's an obligation and a federal
> requirement.  That's some sketchy reasoning.
> 
> Post this same thing to alt.privacy and watch the place explode.  Those
> guys eat this stuff up

Applying for a driver's license is hardly a federal requirement; plenty
of people go about their lives legally without owning one.  Now, in order
to DRIVE, it becomes a requirement.  That's because driving is not a
right, any more than flying a plane is a right.

Anyway, that's besides the point.  This will be overturned in time. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#874

In article <leg6um$a2i$1@dont-email.me>, <cykros@devio.us> wrote:

> Applying for a driver's license is hardly a federal requirement; plenty
> of people go about their lives legally without owning one.  Now, in order
> to DRIVE, it becomes a requirement.  That's because driving is not a
> right, any more than flying a plane is a right.

Precisely my point, although try "legal" rather than "federal" in the
above.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#876

In message <240220142213234059%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <leg6um$a2i$1@dont-email.me>, <cykros@devio.us> wrote:

>> Applying for a driver's license is hardly a federal requirement; plenty
>> of people go about their lives legally without owning one.  Now, in order
>> to DRIVE, it becomes a requirement.  That's because driving is not a
>> right, any more than flying a plane is a right.

> Precisely my point, although try "legal" rather than "federal" in the
> above.

The thing is, there is no "third party" here. There are TWO parties.
You, and the government. You are not voluntarily providing anything to
a THIRD party.

-- 
The King of Marigold was in the kitchen cooking breakfast for the Queen
The Queen was in the parlor playing piano for the children of the King

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#881

In article <slrnlgnkm4.1gv5.g.kreme@oswin.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <240220142213234059%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > In article <leg6um$a2i$1@dont-email.me>, <cykros@devio.us> wrote:
> 
> >> Applying for a driver's license is hardly a federal requirement; plenty
> >> of people go about their lives legally without owning one.  Now, in order
> >> to DRIVE, it becomes a requirement.  That's because driving is not a
> >> right, any more than flying a plane is a right.
> 
> > Precisely my point, although try "legal" rather than "federal" in the
> > above.
> 
> The thing is, there is no "third party" here. There are TWO parties.
> You, and the government. You are not voluntarily providing anything to
> a THIRD party.

What's a third party got to do with it. The question is whether you are
voluntarily supplying information to the state or not, which you are
since there is no obligation to hold a driving licence.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#939

On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:58:29 +0000, Tim Streater wrote,

> In article <slrnlgnkm4.1gv5.g.kreme@oswin.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <240220142213234059%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> > In article <leg6um$a2i$1@dont-email.me>, <cykros@devio.us> wrote:
>> 
>> >> Applying for a driver's license is hardly a federal requirement; plenty
>> >> of people go about their lives legally without owning one.  Now, in order
>> >> to DRIVE, it becomes a requirement.  That's because driving is not a
>> >> right, any more than flying a plane is a right.
>> 
>> > Precisely my point, although try "legal" rather than "federal" in the
>> > above.
>> 
>> The thing is, there is no "third party" here. There are TWO parties.
>> You, and the government. You are not voluntarily providing anything to
>> a THIRD party.
>
> What's a third party got to do with it. The question is whether you are
> voluntarily supplying information to the state or not, which you are
> since there is no obligation to hold a driving licence.

"'A person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he 
voluntarily turns over to third parties,' Doty wrote, quoting from a 1979 
U.S. Supreme Court case."

This is part of the judge's reasoning for tossing out the cases. But A, the 
information is not given to a third party; and B, the information might not 
be given voluntarily if the person must obtain government ID for a purpose 
other than driving.


-- 
Elizabeth T. Knuth
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/
Slashdot Beta delenda est!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1020

In message <250220140858296433%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnlgnkm4.1gv5.g.kreme@oswin.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <240220142213234059%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> > In article <leg6um$a2i$1@dont-email.me>, <cykros@devio.us> wrote:
>> 
>> >> Applying for a driver's license is hardly a federal requirement; plenty
>> >> of people go about their lives legally without owning one.  Now, in order
>> >> to DRIVE, it becomes a requirement.  That's because driving is not a
>> >> right, any more than flying a plane is a right.
>> 
>> > Precisely my point, although try "legal" rather than "federal" in the
>> > above.
>> 
>> The thing is, there is no "third party" here. There are TWO parties.
>> You, and the government. You are not voluntarily providing anything to
>> a THIRD party.

> What's a third party got to do with it. The question is whether you are
> voluntarily supplying information to the state or not, which you are
> since there is no obligation to hold a driving licence.

Please go back and read the thread.


-- 
'In the Fyres of Struggle let us bake New Men, who Will Notte heed the
old Lies.'

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web