Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieray
we aren't talking about an inanimate object.
..and that's the rub...he trusted him with something extremely personal, something so personal he took his own life over it..it's up to him to make sure the probablity of "being exposed" is nil.
i can expect my job to be there tommorrow, doesn't mean it will be.
i can confide in a friend to not share personal infromation with others, and if he does, then he's a scumbag..but I learn on super sensitive matters, it's up to me to make sure it deosn't happen again...didn't the kid unplug the webcam? he was aware of the risk.
|
Sorry, but this is a precedent that cannot exist.
The law cannot operate under the presupposition that all men are liars for the reasons I've already noted.
If you're told that you will be given privacy, the law has to presume an expectation. To do otherwise would obliterate all jurisprudence.
Was he wise to believe him? Oh, who the hell knows? I'd like to think his trust was at least reasonable. Having lived in a dorm and having brought my G/F back, the sock on the door and/or the wink and nod was something that you put a lot of faith in.
But wise has little to do with it here - the law's going to say the expecation existed.