Forum Moderators: not2easy
Are license plates personally identifiable and therefore off limits? Why do people blur out the plates when selling a car and posting photos of it?
The exact laws for this kind of thing vary by jurisdiction, and public figures have a lower expectation of privacy. Get some legal advice if you want to publish this information, but from a business standpoint, I wouldn't do it.
I can tell you from a photographer's point of view that license plates are a no-no unless you get a full release from the owner to use. Shooting a crowded freeway where the individual plates are just there as a matter of fact and part of the overall story is one thing, but shooting individual plates AS the subject is something altogether different and requires a property release.
My concern would be getting sued for libel. Even if they are not likely to win such a case, they can make your life hell just by filing. In fact, when it comes to a libel, you are probably better off posting the picture or video of the offending action than just stating it.
It comes down to whether your nerves and finances can handle getting sued. I have a couple of friends that are judgement-proof, they find it very freeing.
"I saw Ralph Rabbit of Peoria, and he must have been drunk because he almost ran me off the road."
but I would not hesitate to blog:
"Ralph Rabbit of Peoria almost ran me off the road."
Now I can't prove that 4WIDG3T almost hit me since I don't ride around with a camera (I should), but do they have to prove they didn't almost hit me? Don't they also have to prove damages?
They don't want to be held liable for those freaks who take it upon themselves to inflict retribution based on what they've read, rather than on what has ( or has not ) actually happened to them.
Self-appointed Champions, if you will.
but do they have to prove they didn't almost hit me? Don't they also have to prove damages?
They don't need to prove nuthin to file the suit. They need to prove a lot to win a suit.
But you may want to consider that you do not automatically get your attorney's fees if they lose. You better plan on the costs for defending the suit coming out of your pocket.
A good place to start your education is [dictionary.law.com...] where you can search on "libel". Follow some of those links to the definitions, and follow some of the links at the bottom of those pages to learn some related terms.
To get a good idea of how your actions are likely to be viewed in your juristiction, talk to a lawyer.
Why do you think most 'hidden camera' shows blot that information out?
Because they are commercial enterprises with deep pockets involved in non-news productions.
Watch your nightly news. They do not tend to blur pictures of license plates or people's faces unless that is some sort of term to get the story.
A personal blog detailing facts and opinion are not in the same category as hidden camera shows, and in many ways would receive some of the same protections as the news shows. The big difference is that most personal blogs do not have a legal department on staff.
And he is not talking about pictures anyway
Why do people blur out the plates when selling a car and posting photos of it?
He asked why, I answered why.... asked and answered
Not to mention, license plates are not personal property, they are government property
Bad logic, they are your personal ID that uniquely link you to a car, whether officially the state owns the tag or not. Try applying your logic to a phone # obviously owned by the phone company and see how far you get when you post it and people start calling the poor person.
Posting potentially comments with a car license, phone #, address, photos, etc. is just not smart.
Post your stories and leave out the personal details unless you're filing a police report :)
Bad logic, they are your personal ID that uniquely link you to a car, whether officially the state owns the tag or not. Try applying your logic to a phone # obviously owned by the phone company and see how far you get when you post it and people start calling the poor person.
How exactly would posting a phone number be illegal? It can be used for illegal activity, but the act itself is not illegal.
There is absolutely noting illegal about identifying someone and stating factual or opinion (stated as opinion) information about that person's public actions.
Posting potentially comments with a car license, phone #, address, photos, etc. is just not smart.
it may not be smart, but that is different than illegal.
So maybe it was a poor example. My point was, and still is, that the reason folks blur the plates is because they do not wish to be hassled, stalked, or otherwise have their privacy infringed upon. An expectation of privacy if you will.
No, they blur the plates to avoid lawsuits.
Read up on "expectation of privacy" and "invasion of privacy" and see how you can possibly apply that to this situation. The outside of your vehicle has no expectation of privacy on a public road.
You have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to being photographed in a restroom. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that same restroom when it comes to having a loud conversation with the person in the next stall.
Doing something that calls attention to yourself in public, such as reckless driving, removes any reasonable expectation of privacy.
Yes, those hidden camera shows tend to invade privacy. And I bet they get releases from everyone they have to before they show those clips, and you can bet they have to throw away a lot more tape than they ever use because they don't get releases.
Mentioning license plate numbers is not an issue of privacy. It is an issue of publicity, and an issue of libel when attached to what else is said. Both of these have a pile of positive defences in this case.
All that said, I would have to be really pissed off at someone to be willing to risk the suit myself.
Why do people blur out the plates when selling a car and posting photos of it?I stand by what I said.
Please, let it go.
Rather than requiring that an alleged stalker "intend" to make another person fear harm, the bill requires only that a stalker "intentionally act in a way" that makes someone else fear harm.
In other words, it's a very gray area (and, BigDave, would also apply to someone posting phone numbers online).
I think the best advice in this situation is: don't make any more enemies than you have to.
How exactly would posting a phone number be illegal? It can be used for illegal activity, but the act itself is not illegal.There is absolutely noting illegal about identifying someone and stating factual or opinion (stated as opinion) information about that person's public actions.
Did anyone say it was illegal?
Nooooo..........
I never said it was illegal, don't put words in my mouth.
Such posts of personal information with your "facts or opinions" can land you in a bunch of trouble which is why smart people leave those little identifying factoids off web sites and blogs. It falls under the wonderful scope of slander and harassment, they have proof too - your web site - what proof would you have that "The nutjob driving License # XXXYYYZZZ almost killed me!"? None.
Posting a phone # could cause people to call and harass someone which could result in a lawsuit for creating a nuisance/harassment. Posting someone's license # could result in worse with some road raging nutjob that remembers your license # from a web site and then spots that car on the road and decides to "TEACH THEM A LESSON".
Guess who it all points back to?
You guessed it, the web site that posted it.
Who cares if it's legal or not, it's just not smart to do.
Period.
In other words, it's a very gray area (and, BigDave, would also apply to someone posting phone numbers online).
I stand by what I said that the actual posting of a phone number is not illegal. What else you post with it would be what *could* cause you problems. That is the "intentionally in a way" part.
Did anyone say it was illegal?Nooooo..........
I never said it was illegal, don't put words in my mouth.
So, what other way would I have to "see how far you get when you post it and people start calling the poor person"?
How would I be stopped other than by legal remedy?
It falls under the wonderful scope of slander and harassment,
No it doesn't. It would be libel, not slander, but you have already stated that you don't care if you know the correct law or not. You might want to check out that link I posted earlier and learn something.
As for harrassment, a one time posting does not meet the "continuing or systematic" component required for most legal definitions of harassment. And I really doubt that it would meet any of the defined purpopses of harassment laws. But I honestly do not know all the harassment laws in the country, but it certainly would not violate RCW 9A.46 which is the law that would apply to me.
Posting a phone # could cause people to call and harass someone which could result in a lawsuit for creating a nuisance/harassment.
I never denied that it could lead to a lawsuit. I even stated that in most, if not all of my posts to this thread. But you have not posted anything that would show that they could actually win the suit.
Who cares if it's legal or not, it's just not smart to do.
Well, you seem to keep leading back to "legal" without actually coming up with any law.
As for whether it is smart to do, I'll leave that up to the person that is doing it. I can think of a lot of cases where it might be a very smart thing to do, as long as you have considered any consequences.
As for harrassment, a one time posting does not meet the "continuing or systematic"
Tsk tsk, some day you're going to be in for a rude awakening with that philosophy.
It's not how many times you post, even once, it's the damage caused by the post and/or how people act on your post.
You can banter the semantics all you want, it's just a bad idea no matter how you slice it or what you call it.
At what point did I suggest that it is wise to post such things or that I would do it as a matter of course. I'll help you out by quoting myself.
My concern would be getting sued for libel. Even if they are not likely to win such a case, they can make your life hell just by filing.
It comes down to whether your nerves and finances can handle getting sued.
They don't need to prove nuthin to file the suit.
But you may want to consider that you do not automatically get your attorney's fees if they lose. You better plan on the costs for defending the suit coming out of your pocket.
To get a good idea of how your actions are likely to be viewed in your juristiction, talk to a lawyer.
it may not be smart, but that is different than illegal.
All that said, I would have to be really pissed off at someone to be willing to risk the suit myself.
If you actually paid any attention, you might have noticed the differen between the "what is legal" discussion and the "what I would do or recommend" part.
As for the bit you quoted from me about harassment, show me the case law or statute that says otherwise. Have you actually read any harassment statutes or the definition at the link mentioned above?
I see you are in Northern California, and as luck would have it, so is monkeythumpa, so this would be the definition of harassment that would actually apply. I'll give you a hint here, the appropriate statute would be in the California Penal Code 646.9, paying special attention to (e),(f) and (g). Since I doubt you will look them up on your own, here they are, with my emphasis added (and some marked snippage):
(e) For the purposes of this section, "harasses" means engages in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.(f) For the purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."
(g) For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, <snip> or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct <snip> statements and conduct, made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family, and made with
the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. <snip> Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "credible threat."
What part of that do you not understand?
As for the civil statute, it is in the California Civil Code section 1708.7. The definition is pretty much the same thing.
Other statutes of interest would include sections 422 (threats) and 653m (threatening communications) of the Penal Code, and then there is libel which is covered under the Civil Code 43-48. Libel is the only suit that would get you any traction at all (as I pointed out in message #4), but would be a tough one to win in a case where it was only a car that was identified.
So I guess I can post the license plate but only blog about what happened and don't speculate, incite or threaten. It still might get me sued, but as long as I am not malicious I should be ok.
My boss is a lawyer so I will talk to him about it next time he is in the office.
You really don't read well, do you?
Nor do you, I didn't use the term "illegal" in the first place and don't have enough stamina left to wade thru the latest installment on this topic.
Nor do you, I didn't use the term "illegal" in the first place
If I say I bought a car, it can be assumed that it means the same thing as I payed money for the car. You did not use the word "illegal", but you did talk about a lawsuit. How do you file a suit if there was no law broken?
You also suggest that I was "in for a rude awakening" when I was pointing out that it does not meet the legal standard for harassment. Or were you suggesting that an illegal act will be perpetrated against me?
Do you know what happens if you file a suit based on "damages" and not on the "law" that allows for damages? Your opponent files for dismissal with predudice. You are likely to get dismissed without predjudice for a short time, which will then become with prejudice.
No illegal activity means no lawsuit.
If you pick a law, and you are unable to come up with any facts, the defendant will file for, and most likely get a summary judgement.
You never get to a jury if there are no triable facts in dispute. You don't get to play on their sympathy if you are unable to come up with an illegal act.
don't have enough stamina left to wade thru the latest installment on this topic.
Doesn't surprise me. You seem to like to discuss your opinion on legal topics without any interest in increasing your legal knowledge.
Let's try to remember that these threads are supposed to contain information from which the end-user makes up his / her minds, not debates?
yes, and it is best to make sure that disinformation is sufficiently squashed to make a properly informed decision. That is what debate is good at doing.
monkeythumpa has now had access to the relevant law and is going to ask a lawyer. Sounds to me like the debate worked.
