이른바 포켓다이얼과 프라이버시 침해에 관한 미국 연방법원 판결례 (The Federal Circuit Court s Recent Decision About Pocket Dialing and Privacy: Huff v. Spaw)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 경북대학교 IT와 법연구소
· 수록지 정보 : IT와 법연구 / 14호 / 91 ~ 114페이지
· 저자명 : 정하명

초록

Pocket dialing refers to the accidental placement of a phone call while a person's mobile phone or cordless phone is in the owner's pocket or handbag. The recipient of the call typically hears random background noise when answering the phone. If the caller remains unaware, the recipient will sometimes overhear whatever is happening in the caller's vicinity. A pocket-dialed call can continue for many minutes, or until the recipient's voice mail system ends the call. Would there be any breach of privacy when the recipient of pocket dialed call intentionally recorded it and shared with the third party? The Sixth Circuit ruled that the caller(James Huff) lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy to support his Title III claim in Huff v. Spaw(794 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2015)) The court began its analysis with the text of Title III, which establishes that “a person engages in protected oral communication only if he exhibited ‘an expectation of privacy that is both subjectively and objectively reasonable.’” The Sixth Circuit applied Katz’s twopronged Fourth Amendment test in a Title Ⅲ suits involving two private parties in Huff. One scholar argued that cyber-physical systems communicate and cooperate with each other and with humans in real time, and via the Internet of Services over the Internet of Things in the 4th industrial revolution era. To secure his privacy interests, he must take affirmative measure when he uses the Internet of Things and other wearable technologies. Without this kinds of affirmative measure, the protection of privacy will be limited in the 4th industrial revolution era.

영어초록

Pocket dialing refers to the accidental placement of a phone call while a person's mobile phone or cordless phone is in the owner's pocket or handbag. The recipient of the call typically hears random background noise when answering the phone. If the caller remains unaware, the recipient will sometimes overhear whatever is happening in the caller's vicinity. A pocket-dialed call can continue for many minutes, or until the recipient's voice mail system ends the call. Would there be any breach of privacy when the recipient of pocket dialed call intentionally recorded it and shared with the third party? The Sixth Circuit ruled that the caller(James Huff) lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy to support his Title III claim in Huff v. Spaw(794 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2015)) The court began its analysis with the text of Title III, which establishes that “a person engages in protected oral communication only if he exhibited ‘an expectation of privacy that is both subjectively and objectively reasonable.’” The Sixth Circuit applied Katz’s twopronged Fourth Amendment test in a Title Ⅲ suits involving two private parties in Huff. One scholar argued that cyber-physical systems communicate and cooperate with each other and with humans in real time, and via the Internet of Services over the Internet of Things in the 4th industrial revolution era. To secure his privacy interests, he must take affirmative measure when he uses the Internet of Things and other wearable technologies. Without this kinds of affirmative measure, the protection of privacy will be limited in the 4th industrial revolution era.

참고자료

· 없음