Kelly
Beginner
Posts: 129
|
Post by Kelly on Sept 2, 2006 12:44:36 GMT -5
Just wondering if anyone out there knows anything about this email I received at shortly after 1:00 am EST this morning. Its from some anonomous person that sent me this email through the internet (meaning he/she got it off of one of these caving discussion boards).
The email was whining about some trip to Pettijohns cave where some people from a grotto were apparently rude to him/her. So to retaliate, he/she went out and posted a bunch of cave locations on the internet.
At first I thought this was some sort of mass email to a bunch of people, but looking at the email addresses it was sent to, there were only 5 of us targeted. One of which, Wayne Harrison, from the NSS DB, isn't even from the TAG area. Did anyone else get a similar email? Does anyone know anything about this? Who this person is? Or why this email was sent to me?
He/she says he has 2500 coordinates of caves in TAG and if we don't stop sending him hate mail he is going to post all of them on the internet. First off, I've never sent anyone hate mail for posting cave locations. Secondly, this guy/girl is nuts! He/she is setting himself up for a law suit from some of these cave property owners.
-Kelly
|
|
L Roebuck
Technical Support
Caving
^V^ Just a caver
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by L Roebuck on Sept 3, 2006 8:48:09 GMT -5
Just wondering if anyone out there knows anything about this email I received at shortly after 1:00 am EST this morning. Its from some anonomous person that sent me this email through the internet (meaning he/she got it off of one of these caving discussion boards). The email was whining about some trip to Pettijohns cave where some people from a grotto were apparently rude to him/her. So to retaliate, he/she went out and posted a bunch of cave locations on the internet. At first I thought this was some sort of mass email to a bunch of people, but looking at the email addresses it was sent to, there were only 5 of us targeted. One of which, Wayne Harrison, from the NSS DB, isn't even from the TAG area. Did anyone else get a similar email? Does anyone know anything about this? Who this person is? Or why this email was sent to me? He/she says he has 2500 coordinates of caves in TAG and if we don't stop sending him hate mail he is going to post all of them on the internet. First off, I've never sent anyone hate mail for posting cave locations. Secondly, this guy/girl is nuts! He/she is setting himself up for a law suit from some of these cave property owners. -Kelly This is very strange  Well, I did not get an email like you described and have not heard anyone else mention any thing like this. I agree the poster is likely setting him self up for a law suit from private cave property owners if this person posts their cave locations on the internet. The email you and others received may one day be needed in court by private landowners. You should probably save that email. |
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Sept 3, 2006 11:47:03 GMT -5
How do you all figure there is a lawsuit in this? It is not illegal in the US to post cave locations on the Internet--or anywhere else. It is illegal to post such locations AND overtly invite someone to go to them if they are non-public caves... that might be construed as invasion of privacy... but as long as the poster is just putting up a list of names and locations with no editorial comment, or is warning people NOT to go there, there isn't much anyone can do about it, since distributing a list of locations of natural features isn't against the law.
The best a cave owner could do would get a 'cease and desist' order for his/her particular cave, and if the poster persisted, they might be found in contempt of a court order. But the landowner would have to have a stronger case than "because I don't want it there" in order to get such a court order.
The FCRPA regulation against distributing cave locations just applies to federal agency behavior in regards to significant federal caves--not even all caves on federal land. DOD reservations, for example, are not under the FCRPA.
On other cave boards, and on alt. caving, a character, now deceased, named Ollie or Hoyt McKagen took great delight in posting great lists of cave locations , and using the posting of such lists as a threat against other posters . These were both private and public caves. There wasn't anything anyone could do (except kick him off the discussion list)--which is impossible in the case of an unmoderated Usenet group.
If you do a search for 'cave locations' on Google, you get 6 million hits, some of them containing cave locations. The first page even has locations in TAG! Therefore, if the info is already out there, while not exactly an idle threat, the emailer obviously doesn't know what's already on the Net, in the library, etc.
I wouldn't let him/her rattle your nerves, Kelly.
PS. I'm not saying wholesale distribution of cave locations on the Net is a good idea. I'm just saying it isn't illegal.
|
|
Kelly
Beginner
Posts: 129
|
Post by Kelly on Sept 3, 2006 15:14:58 GMT -5
Oh, I don't think there will be a law suit for it being illegal to post locations on the internet. I wonder if someone illegally goes on a property to find a cave without a landowner's permission if the property owner may try to sue the internet site owner. It just sounds like a lot of trouble to me. I wonder why he/she singled me out?? Thanks, Azurerana, I promise not to let him/her rattle my nerves. It was just a little strange that's all. Heck, the guy didn't even tell me who he is, so you can't put much on that. Probably just a prank or something. -Kelly |
|
|
|
Post by Sharon Faulkner on Sept 3, 2006 18:47:01 GMT -5
Sounds like it could be either a prank or someone trying to restart the cave location posting issue. Maybe if no one makes an issue of it nothing else will come of it. |
|
|
|
Post by mabercrombie on Sept 9, 2006 16:35:24 GMT -5
Hey Kelly:
was this mad emailer what mails at midnights email adress magsad@.......net?
If it was I am the guy who sent the email. and I promise it was a very polite email, as a matter of fact i had a more diplomatically minded freind write the stupid thing for me. did he include his name in his email by any chance because its not listed on his web page O' cave locations.
|
|
|
|
Post by madratdan on Sept 11, 2006 11:52:45 GMT -5
Sounds like it could be either a prank or someone trying to restart the cave location posting issue. Maybe if no one makes an issue of it nothing else will come of it. IMO, the best way to deal with the web site owner is to either ignore them so they don't get the attention they are looking for. Or go the other route and try to get to know them so you know where where they are coming from. It would be nice to try and talk them out of listing caves, on private property.  I'm guessing most caves back in TAG are on private property of some sort. Out here in Colorado, most of our caves are on USFS or BLM land. It's not illegal for private individuals to list them on the internet. I'm sure the cave owners themselves could press a lawsuit against the web site owner. Especially if it was a group effort. I wonder if the NSS would help out the owners with a lawsuit of this sorts? |
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Sept 11, 2006 19:22:48 GMT -5
I'm guessing most caves back in TAG are on private property of some sort. Out here in Colorado, most of our caves are on USFS or BLM land. It's not illegal for private individuals to list them on the internet. I'm sure the cave owners themselves could press a lawsuit against the web site owner. Dan-- On what legal grounds? It isn't illegal to say Farmer Jones has a really cool fishing pond on his property. How is this different from listing a cave location? (Now, Farmer Jones may not like this, but it isn't illegal to do so. ) Missouri has a guide to geological wonders and curiosities put out by the state. Probably 80% of the sites--with explicit locations and even some with driving directions-- are on private property. There is a disclaimer that one has to ask permission of the landowners to visit their property, and that this book does NOT give permission to access the sites. There are all sorts of really cool NO TRESPASSING graphics throughout the book. but regardless, the locations are there. If the state can do this, there surely isn't any law against private individuals doing this. You can still go online and find all sorts of features and locations listed in a database maintained by the USGS. (No actual caves--they took those off, but places named for caves are still there). At least here, there are all sorts of outdoor books which are just compendia of cool places on private lands. No permission is needed to talk about or publicize something. The only permission needed is that to actually go to the site--which, obviously only the landowner can grant. I'd really like to know under what law people think they can bring a lawsuit on this matter. Not everything stupid is illegal (yet). |
|
Kelly
Beginner
Posts: 129
|
Post by Kelly on Sept 12, 2006 6:35:54 GMT -5
Hey Kelly: was this mad emailer what mails at midnights email adress magsad@.......net? If it was I am the guy who sent the email. and I promise it was a very polite email, as a matter of fact i had a more diplomatically minded freind write the stupid thing for me. did he include his name in his email by any chance because its not listed on his web page O' cave locations. Hi Mabercrombie! Welcome to the forum. I really think this is just a cry for attention. Someone on tagnet pointed out that those are old lat/long locations anyway, so its unlikely anyone will be able to locate the caves from those locations. It is also absolutely not illegal for the locations of caves on private property to be posted. However, if there is a property owner of a closed cave who gets bombarded with visitors who tell said property owner about this web site, the property owner may sue the web host. Just like there are no rules for posting locations, there are no rules for who sues who and why. I think this issue will take care of itself, so I'm not at all worried about any of this. I would encourage everyone to just let this one go. BTW, Mabercrombie, since you are from the Chattanooga Grotto. I heard there was a caver from Chattanooga who recently got their tires slashed when parked outside of a cave. The caver said it was "grotto" cavers who slashed his tires. Have you heard anything about this incident? -Kelly |
|
|
|
Post by madratdan on Sept 12, 2006 8:52:27 GMT -5
So if several of the land owners are bothered by this information about their cave locations being posted on the web, they can always start a law suit toward the individual. They might not win, but they can still try. You never know.........this is how laws sometimes get changed. Money talks and BS walks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Sept 12, 2006 17:02:22 GMT -5
So if several of the land owners are bothered by this information about their cave locations being posted on the web, they can always start a law suit toward the individual. They might not win, but they can still try. You never know.........this is how laws sometimes get changed. Money talks and BS walks. The fact remains: in order for a lawsuit or court order to be filed, (not just threatened) there has to be some law in existence which the aggrieved feels is being ignored, one under which he or she is entitled to a certain action or recompense, or some law which they feel is being used in an incorrect manner against their personal rights. In order for the lawyer to file the legal brief, he or she has to cite the law which enables the defendant to pursue action in court. The whole Federal agency policy of non-disclosure of locations of significant caves to the general public for casual use is based on section 5 of the FCRPA, and applies (as Dan correctly states) only to the actions of certain departments and agencies of the Feds. Just because the actions of someone else annoys you is no grounds for a lawsuit. Those actions must be contrary to some law or ordinance. Real estate records are public. Real estate records include or are cross referenced to property descriptions. Caves are one feature included in a property description. Although cavers generally treat cave locations on a 'need to know' basis, anyone in the general public, with enough time, and a little geneaological/real estate/map smarts can figure out who owns a plot of land, and if it has a cave on it, and where on the planet it is. All legal. In 1993, a lawsuit brought by Barbra Streisand against publication of aerial photos of the outside of her house, showing its location, was thrown out of court. She had brought suit under a California right to privacy law. If the location of a person's house is not protected, it is fairly obvious that the location of a natural feature like a cave (whose existence preceeded and presumably will succeed the tenancy of any particular person or family) wouldn't be either. Privacy accrues only to a person, and data unique to that person, not necessarily to information about their property, and only if it is against state or federal statute. You would be amazed at the things we think are private information, which are actually just privileged information (i.e., not generally available, but usually legally available for a price. An example would be non-published phone numbers.) About the only thing I can think of a person could sue under would be emotional distress caused from revelation of the location of a cave they owned. I'm not sure how that would play in front of a jury. Anyone know of any other laws under which a lawsuit could be filed? |
|
Kelly
Beginner
Posts: 129
|
Post by Kelly on Sept 13, 2006 6:35:19 GMT -5
So if several of the land owners are bothered by this information about their cave locations being posted on the web, they can always start a law suit toward the individual. They might not win, but they can still try. You never know.........this is how laws sometimes get changed. Money talks and BS walks. The fact remains: in order for a lawsuit or court order to be filed, (not just threatened) there has to be some law in existence which the aggrieved feels is being ignored, one under which he or she is entitled to a certain action or recompense, or some law which they feel is being used in an incorrect manner against their personal rights. In order for the lawyer to file the legal brief, he or she has to cite the law which enables the defendant to pursue action in court. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. Its if they WIN the law suit that is questionable. There are many folks out there that sue just to aggravate their enemies by dragging out long proceedings. These folks know they won't win, but they WILL cause considerable time and expense to be lost from the people they are trying to sue. It is very costly just to BE sued, not to mention the time and effort. Some of these non-cases drag out for years and years. I heard a news report once several years ago about a woman who went and got a law degree just so she could sue anyone that p$$ed her off.  To give a good cave-related example: There are laws in all 3 states of TAG stating that you are not liable if you get hurt in someone's cave (if you did not pay to enter the cave). These laws may prevent someone from winning a law suit, but it will not prevent the law suit from happening in the first place, and at considerable expense to the property owner. The SCCi will often offer to lease cave property for as low as $1.00. This is because the SCCi carries insurance that will cover the cost of pending law suits, so it is of great benefit to property owners to have their caves leased by the SCCi.  |
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Sept 13, 2006 9:21:33 GMT -5
I think you all are missing to point.
Except for small claims court, where a plaintiff represents him or herself, you need to have a lawyer and legal standing in an issue to get on a court docket. In order to file suit, a lawyer must operate within the law-- that is, bring suit under some ordinance or statute or general principle of constitutional law (e.g., a person's 1st amendment rights are alleged to be violated).
There is a wide river between the 'threat of liability lawsuit" which scares landowners, and actually having to pay for one's day in court. It's the fear which generates the whole insurance scam. But such liability insurance isn't the point here: cave locations are DATA-- they are not trespass or accident during access. Actually setting foot in the cave, is another can of legal worms entirely.
Again I ask: what ordinance or statute or principle of contitutional law is being violated by the private party free distribution of data pertaining to natural features?
Even the lady who supposedly got the law degree in order to sue anyone who annoyed her needed to find out the laws to support her position.
It has been established (telephone book database cases) that public facts themselves are not copyrightable, nor are they protected information like product formulas used in trade (Coke, KFC herbs and spices, etc.) A complete database (as a unique collection in a particular format) is protected, but someone can data mine that information, add more, (or subtract some) reformat, and be perfectly within the law.
You all might think I'm just arguing as a devil's advocate, and in a sense I am. You see, if someone brings a frivolous or poorly defensible suit over cave location publication and the suit FAILS, that has established legal precedent , too.
|
|
L Roebuck
Technical Support
Caving
^V^ Just a caver
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by L Roebuck on Sept 13, 2006 10:08:33 GMT -5
 Hummm ..... very good points. This instance may or may not be grounds for an Invasion of Privacy lawsuit but could it possibly be grounds as an Intrusion of Solitude? As I understand an Intrusion of Solitude occurs where one person exposes another to unwarranted publicity. What's your opinion? Could the posting of landowner's property via cave locations on the internet possibly fall into the category of 'unwarranted publicity'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Sept 13, 2006 21:24:41 GMT -5
Hummm ..... very good points. This instance may or may not be grounds for an Invasion of Privacy lawsuit but could it possibly be grounds as an Intrusion of Solitude? As I understand an Intrusion of Solitude occurs where one person exposes another to unwarranted publicity. What's your opinion? Could the posting of landowner's property via cave locations on the internet possibly fall into the category of 'unwarranted publicity'? From what I have been able to gather, Intrusion of Solitude is a subset of invasion of privacy. Mostly used against reporters, Hollywood photographers, and other media folk who are reporting non-newsworthy private details about people, not property, or who in making their creations are physically intruding on the persons or the homes of the defendants, and revealing details without the knowledge or consent of the persons involved. And cave locations for the most part, are not private facts. Property cannot have a right to privacy, since privacy only accrues to people. As long as one does not search, seize, steal, deface, trespass or appropriate property , I'm not sure what offense one could have committed against it. Most of the intrusion of seclusion stuff on the web has language similar to that below: "There we stated that to recover for an invasion of privacy, a plaintiff must meet a heavy burden of showing a substantial interference with his seclusion of a kind that "'would be highly offensive to the ordinary, reasonable man, as the result of conduct to which the reasonable man would strongly object'" (quoting Restatement Second of Torts, Section 652B, comt. d (1977)). " But in adopting that section, this Court also necessarily adopted that section's limitation on such actions. In other words, while holding that an intrusion on solitude may be actionable, this Court recognized that in order to be actionable, the intrusion must be such as would outrage a person of ordinary sensibilities or cause such a person mental suffering, shame, or humiliation. " --http://www.danpinello.com/ Note that this does not mean that the plaintiff underwent such mental suffering-- but that a reasonable man or person of ordinary sensibilities would be so outraged or humiliated. It looks like cavers have an educating the public task ahead--something I've always advocated. I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV. This is not a legal opinion. But cavers need to back off a bit and look at this from the viewpoint of a non-caver. Would a non-caver suffer mental anguish, shame or humiliation because someone (while not naming the owner personally) put up the coordinates to a natural feature on their land? I gather that 'seclusion' means something entirely different here, than having a house in the middle of 400 acres. Most of the law seems to hover around the intent of the person doing an action. Revealing the location of a cave could be good (show cave) bad (generate annoying phone calls to the owner at 3 a.m.) or indifferent (location of a cave is generally known, owner doesn't care, if people trespass or not). It would be really difficult, IMO, to say one was intruding on seclusion by the mere distribution of GPS numbers with no landowner name attached, and with an explicit disclaimer that having this location does NOT give you permission to visit it. The person revealing the cave location has not told you to go ring up Farmer Smith. |
|
Brian Roebuck
Site Admin
Caver
Caving - the one activity that really brings you to your knees!
Posts: 2,732
|
Post by Brian Roebuck on Sept 14, 2006 6:03:00 GMT -5
What about the possibility that the guy is advertizing someone elses natural feature in the context of an "attractive nuisance". This would make the owner more vulnerable to buffoons going caving on his property and subsequently suing when they get injured etc. I would be chapped about someone advertizing my property on the web regardless of their intent and would see if legal action could be taken just for the above reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Sept 14, 2006 8:08:00 GMT -5
What is an attractive nuisance varies by state. If a person says nothing, or overtly says that the the location does not come with permission to visit, it cannot really be said to be advertising.
Under this concept that any publication of locations would constitute making an invitation to an attractive nuisance on private property, it would make publication of all topographically detailed maps or maps with home locations (like the full set of state county maps I have) a cause for lawsuit. The defense to this is truth-- if a map says there is a road or pond there, and there is a road or pond, is that advertising the road or pond as an attractive nuisance to drag racers or swimmers?
What is illegal is the trespass, or harassment of the owner, not the dissemination of information.
It's not the information. It's how a person acts on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sharon Faulkner on Aug 29, 2007 9:07:10 GMT -5
This old topic has recently come up for discussion again and Kelly Rowland mentioned this thread in particular on TAG-Net this morning. Thought I'd bring the thread front and center before rampant confusion runs amok. ;D
Even tho the cave coordinates listed on the website in question are somewhat inaccurate, I wanted to post a friendly reminder to everyone that a URL to the website in question should not be posted to this forum.
Thanks!
|
|
Hummm ..... very good points. 