OK, but did the shark shoot lasers? And were guitar-playing trolls and dinosaurs somehow involved, hm?
Stupid should hurt.
I grew up within a ten-minute drive of that mall and have been there probably hundreds of times. And yet I somehow managed to avoid ever falling into that fountain.
She’s an idiot.
That was pretty much my thought. I heard about the lawsuit and said WTF, and then when I heard she had been busted for credit card fraud, it all made sense: she wants easy money.
The alternative is that she actually is embarrassed about the release of the tape. If that’s the case, then she should have learned about The Streisand Effect before launching her legal assault on the mall authorities.
Me too 
I think we need the next verse, Boyo!
Yeah! According to the Laws of Reality the whole thing should have been recorded by some other nimrod with a cell phone who promptly slapped it up on YouTube and Facebook for the edification of the masses. That’s an unpardonable oversight, in my opinion.
A twang twang twang twang…
*I keep sayin’ I got somethin’ for you,
somethin’ I call love but it’s all text.
I been textin where I shouldn’t be textin
And now someone else is gettin’ all your best.
This phone is made for textin’
And that’s just how I roll
One of these days my phone and me will walk in to a hole. …
I keep textin’ when I ought to be speakin’
And I keep dialin’ when I got no bars.
I keep iphone when I oughta go android
I talk hands on and text while drivin’ cars,
This phone is made for textin’
And that’s just how I roll
One of these days my phone and me will drive in to a pole. .
*
Dear Phone Warranty.
I would like to have my phone replaced as it simply stopped working while I was texting in the mall. No,I did not drop it, it just stopped working.
Thank you.
Should this poor victim be compensated? After all, she was only exercising her constitutional right to act stupidly-surely she deserves some cash?
The last lawsuit of this flavor that I’m aware of was dismissed.
Judge tosses lawsuit by dea agent who shot himself.
Differences in details, but fundamentally the same IMO.
This is exactly the kind of things people say, and then the tech opens up the case and sees all the water still inside. I suspect that stupid people assume that no one else is brighter than they are.
The other day, I saw two head-down-texters collide with each other - for a few moments afterward, they seemed genuinely terrified and perplexed as to what had just happened to them - as if they each interpreted the others action as an attack - I mean, other people are supposed to be looking where they’re going, right?
Well, no. Actually it’s not fundamentally the same. The judge in your link ruled that it couldn’t be established that the video came from “…a ‘protected’ system of records…”. It was a private individual who had filmed it, rather than a security or surveillance system subject to records management guidelines and privacy laws.
In the text messaging bimbo’s case, it did come from a “protected system” subject to privacy laws. None of the footage should ever have left the security office.
I don’t know that the video records of a private security company are subject to privacy laws. Do you have a cite for that? The video was shot in a public space, and an individual generally does not have a reasonable explectation of privacy in a public place. Even if they fired the guard who released it, that may be due to releasing such footage being a violation of company policy rather than because any laws were broken.
It depends on where your juristiction, privacy laws vary. For example, here we have the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). It is one of the main laws that limits the collection, use, and disclosure of individuals’ personal information.
An important aspect is: “Use must be reasonable. In general, employers can collect, use and disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate under the circumstances.”
For security footage, there’s generally implied consent, but use and disclosure is still limited to purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate under the circumstances. The collection, use, and disclosure must be limited to the stated purposes to the greatest extent possible. So security footage would reasonably be expected to be accessed by security and/or law enforcement personnel, and disclosed to the public only for the purpose of furthering an investigation.
Uploading security footage to YouTube (public disclosure) for the prupose of a big “Ha-ha!” would be legitimately actionable under PIPEDA as a violation of privacy rights due to the “consent” part of the “disclosure” part. There are comparable laws in the U.S.
Firstly, shopping malls are private property. Secondly, there are specific provisions for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by businesses and organizations that differ from something like a private individual taking a snapshot.
Generally, organizations should not post personal information (such as camera footage) without the consent of the individual. To do so risks civil action.
A video of an anonymous person walking in a mall is not personal information. Is there any suggestion that the guard released this woman’s name? She wasn’t identifiable in the videos, and AFAIK was not identified until she identified herself by going to the media.
Also, if you look up similar laws in Canada, such as the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), they have guidelines that apply to permanent surveillance operations, such as security cameras at an institution.
For permanent surveillance systems, videotaped footage is considered a “collection” and is authorized on only three grounds: the collection is expressly authorized by statute; it is used for the purposes of law enforcement; it is necessary to the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity. There are also restrictions on who has access to the footage and guidelines for retention, security, and disposal of the video records.
Video footage is considered a form of personal information, in Canada at least.
It doesn’t really matter though because if privacy laws restrict how footage is used/disclosed or whatever, then the security guard was naughty by uploading the collected footage to the internet. Even if we never found out who she was.
Ha this is even on Australian radio, she is a tard who thinks that she can scam a quick buck. Should lock up people who bring stupid lawsuits like this! I love the line “no one came to help”.
For U.S. privacy laws, a shopping mall is considered “semi-public” and is treated about the same as being in a public space as far as photographs or video. Edit: Canadian privacy laws are much more stringent that in the U.S., which is why Google streetview got Canadian privacy watchdogs in a bit of a snit. </edit> You are right though, that for legal claims even in the U.S. “what you do with the photo/video” is significant, but the mis-use has to be pretty bad. In the text-wader’s case, I’d think she was SOL.
Projammers example was a little different. If I’m reading it correctly the cop was saying that the video was handed over to the DEA, and THEN was leaked. I think he was trying to claim that the video was “evidence” that should have remained in the custody of the DEA, but it was leaked specifically to make him look like a fool to the public at large. Which is probably true, but the judge said “tough noogies” anyway.
My comparison was that in both instances, the subjects brought suit because their idiocy had been widely publicized subjecting them to ridicule. I don’t believe in either case that any law was broken. Policy may have been violated concerning the mall video, but that doesn’t carry any weight beyond the disciplinary action reported.
As Eats_Crayons stated, a mall is semi-public. Meaning that everyone is welcome during operating hours unless they are specifically instructed to stay away. The only argument there is that the guard released video that belonged to the mall. Maybe that could be spun into some sort of theft, but that would leave only the guard vulnerable to her lawsuit.