scholarly journals The Third-Party Doctrine and the Third Person

Author(s):  
Simon Stern

According to the third-party doctrine, a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that has been shared with others—including a bank, phone company, or credit card company. The doctrine got its start through an appeal to a locatable observer who corresponds, in literary terms, to a narrator with a limited perspective. This is the kind of perspective that courts have traditionally emphasized when explaining how to assess probable cause. The third-party doctrine turns the limited perspective into an omniscient one. The doctrine takes apparently private conduct and classifies it as public, effectively treating the perspective of the “arresting officer” as if it could encompass large quantities of information, widely distributed in space and time. The discussion here examines a recent defense of the third-party doctrine that similarly collapses the limited and omniscient viewpoints. Then, after exploring the narrative analogy by reference to literary analyses of the omniscient narrator in Victorian fiction, the discussion ends by considering the analogy in relation to contemporary modes of omniscient narration.

1996 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 91-95
Author(s):  
Mark Boynton ◽  
Susan Reynolds

The Fonthill letter has recently been described as ‘one of the most interesting of the corpus of documents which illustrate the working of the Anglo-Saxon law’. It tells a story that is too complicated to summarize here, but the text is now readily accessible alongside a translation and wide-ranging commentary. For present purposes it may be sufficient to say that the letter was written to King Edward the Elder of Wessex (899–924) by the godfather of a troublesome character called Helmstan. The first and longest section of the letter begins with an allusion to Helmstan's theft of a belt and ends with his surrender to his godfather of five hides of land at Fonthill (Wiltshire). Helmstan gave up this land in return for his godfather's support in an oath that Helmstan had to take to defend his title to it against a third party. His godfather promised that Helmstan could continue to occupy the property for his lifetime, provided that he behaved himself. He thus held it under what was in effect a life-læn or lease. All this happened in the reign of King Alfred, some years before the letter was written. The story was told to Alfred's son and successor after the author had exchanged the Fonthill land with the bishop of Winchester and wanted the king to confirm the arrangement. The account is written in the first person but the godfather's name is not given. J. M. Kemble, however, took it that the author of the letter was a man called Ordlaf who is mentioned, in the third person, in the second section of the letter.


2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 152-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Hommelhoff

Abstract. Workplace friendships can be joyful for employees and conducive to positive organizational outcomes. However, recent research has suggested that there are also dark sides and complexities associated with workplace friendships, which are not well understood. This exploratory critical incident study of 201 employees therefore focuses on conflicts that can arise among friends when work and friendship norms clash. Incidents were coded in terms of conflicting resources and broken friendship rules. Results showed that conflicts most often revolved around the resources status and affection. That is, hierarchies and promotions collided with friendship. Moreover, two friendship rules were broken frequently, the intimacy and the third-party rule. That is, either trust was betrayed, or a friend did not act like a friend when a third person, for example, a supervisor, became involved. In demonstrating potential downsides of workplace friendships, this study aims to help employees in understanding and maintaining good workplace relationships.


Author(s):  
Vogenauer Stefan

This commentary focuses on Article 5.2.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning contracts in favour of third parties. Art 5.2.1 stipulates that the parties to a contract can validly agree to benefit a third party, and that it is possible that the third party acquires a right from such an agreement. It also introduces a particular terminology for denominating the parties in the triangular relationship. There are two original parties (‘the parties’) whose agreement contains the promise of one of them (‘the promisor’) to the other (‘the promisee’) to benefit a third person (‘a third party’). This commentary discusses the ‘relativity’ or ‘privity’ of contracts, validity of contracts in favour of third parties, power of the promisor and the promisee to create third party rights, content of the beneficiary's right, rights of the promisee, and implications of invalidity of contracts for third parties.


Generally, in cloud computing the data is outsourced to controls of third party, which may lead to issue of securitys. The data in cloud may lost because of attacks by unknown users and nodes inside the cloud .Therefore, the data within in the cloud must be kept in secured state by using different techniques .In this paper, we propose division and replication of data within in the cloud to improve optimal performance and security .In the present work we separate a file into multiple fragment sand replicate fragments on different nodes in the cloud. Each node, should store fragment only once. Therefore, no information can be get by the attacker. The node storing the fragments within the cloud are separated using a method called T-colouring, which avoids the attacker to find the location of nodes that contain related fragments. The traditional cryptographic techniques for data security are not used in this work, so that computationally expensive methodologies are reduced. The more advanced feature in this work is an automatic update of file fragments on nodes whenever any changes are done by the third person on that particular node.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 399
Author(s):  
Zeynep Özcan

Joint ownership, which is the most prevalent type of co-ownership, is regulated between Article 688 and Article 700 of Turkish Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as “TCC”). Joint ownership is the type of co-ownership, in which more than one person, whom have the same legal status, enjoy the property rights pro rate to their shares. Joint ownership, which is widely seen in theory and practice, has important legal aspects in terms of joint owners’ rights and authorities. Each joint owner of joint ownership has the same rights and authorities as any sole property owner had. The concept of share and joint owners’ power of disposition are significant issues within the Joint ownership. Joint owners have certain rights with respect to usufruct, management and protection of that property. Exploitation rights of such property are determined pro rata to shares hold by the joint owners . Specifically, there are certain limitations for joint owners in terms of the exploitation rights of that property. The right to grant exploitation in favor of third parties by joint owners limits the exploitation rights of other joint owners. Joint owners may grant easements to any third party on the property that subjected to Joint ownership. All joint owners should cast an affirmative vote so as to grant such easement. Besides this, each joint owner may establish any easement rights in favor of any third party upon its shares.Extended English summary is in the end of Full Text PDF (TURKISH) file. Özet             Birlikte mülkiyetin en yaygın türü olan paylı mülkiyet, TMK. m. 688 ve 700 arasında düzenlenmektedir. Paylı mülkiyet, aynı hukukî statüdeki birden fazla kişinin belirli bir eşyaya aynı anda payları oranında malik oldukları toplu mülkiyetin bir türüdür. Teori ve uygulamada sıklıkla karşılaşılan paylı mülkiyet birliği, sahiplerine tanıdığı hak ve yetkiler bakımından da önemlidir. Paylı mülkiyet birliğini oluşturan paydaşlardan her biri malikin sahip olduğu hak ve yükümlülüklere sahiptir. Paylı mülkiyette pay kavramı ve paydaşların pay üzerinde tasarruf yetkileri önemlidir. Paydaşların paylı mülkiyet konusu eşya üzerinde kullanma, yararlanma, yönetim yetkileri ve paylı mülkiyete konu eşyayı korumaya ilişkin yetkileri vardır. Bu yetkilerden, paydaşların yararlanma yetkileri pay oranlarına göre belirlenir. Özellikle de paydaşların paylı mülkiyet konusu eşyayı kullanma yetkilerine ilişkin kanuni ve iradi sınırlamalar bulunmaktadır. Paydaşların 3. kişileri paylı mülkiyet konusu eşyadan yararlandırma yetkisi onların eşyayı kullanma yetkisini sınırlandırmaktadır. Paydaşlar eşya üzerinde 3. kişi lehine irtifak hakkı kurabilirler. Bu durum paydaşların oybirliği ile karar almalarını gerektirir. Ayrıca her paydaş kendi payı üzerinde irtifak hakkı kurarak da 3. kişiye eşyadan yararlanma hakkı tanır.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Lisa Planer-Friedrich

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a common concern for many firms as well as their customers. The term refers to all social and environmentally friendly activities of a firm beyond its legal requirements. This dissertation focuses on the strategic use of (corporate) social responsibility by firms and individuals and its economic implications. In chapters 2,3, and 4, Marco Sahm and I investigate CSR in a theoretical framework. We model CSR as a weight on consumer surplus in firms' objective function. The general decision structure is the same in all three chapters. A firm first strategically chooses the CSR level which maximizes its profit and then it maximizes the resulting objective function in order to choose its output quantity. We solve by backward induction. In chapter 2, we examine the strategic use of CSR in imperfectly competitive markets. First, we consider Cournot competition and show that the endogenous level of CSR is positive for any given number of firms. However, positive CSR levels imply smaller equilibrium profits. Second, we find that an incumbent monopolist can use CSR as an entry deterrent. Both results indicate that CSR may increase market concentration. Finally, we show that CSR levels decrease as the degree of product heterogeneity increases in Cournot competition and are zero in Bertrand Competition. In chapter 3, we examine Cournot competition between two firms that differ in their marginal costs of production. We show that the more efficient firm chooses a higher CSR level, reinforcing its dominant position. If there are sufficiently large fixed costs of CSR, only the more efficient firm will engage in CSR. In chapter 4, we compare the strategic potential of CSR and Customer Orientation (CO) as commitments to larger quantities in Cournot competition, modeled as a multi-stage game. First, in addition to profits, firms can choose to care for the surplus of either all consumers (CSR) or their own customers only (CO). Second, they decide upon the weight of this additional objective. We find that firms prefer to care for all consumers, choosing positive levels of CSR. This result provides an explanation for the recent shift in corporate culture from CO to CSR. Chapter 5 aims at identifying the strategic social responsibility of individuals. I conduct a laboratory experiment with three treatments: a regular ultimatum game (Baseline treatment) and two three-party ultimatum games with an NGO (NGO treatment) and a third person (TP treatment) as third party, respectively. I find that proposers in the three-party treatments allocate positive amounts to the third party. I show that proposers do not exclusively follow social preferences, but also strategic motives play a role when giving to the third party. In addition, responders are more willing to accept a proposal the higher the proposed share for the third party suggesting potential for strategic social responsibility. Proposers in the TP treatment can improve their relative payoffs compared to payoffs in the Baseline treatment by behaving strategically socially towards the third person.


Author(s):  
Matthias Hofer

Abstract. This was a study on the perceived enjoyment of different movie genres. In an online experiment, 176 students were randomly divided into two groups (n = 88) and asked to estimate how much they, their closest friends, and young people in general enjoyed either serious or light-hearted movies. These self–other differences in perceived enjoyment of serious or light-hearted movies were also assessed as a function of differing individual motivations underlying entertainment media consumption. The results showed a clear third-person effect for light-hearted movies and a first-person effect for serious movies. The third-person effect for light-hearted movies was moderated by level of hedonic motivation, as participants with high hedonic motivations did not perceive their own and others’ enjoyment of light-hearted films differently. However, eudaimonic motivations did not moderate first-person perceptions in the case of serious films.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaclyn M. Moloney ◽  
Chelsea A. Reid ◽  
Jody L. Davis ◽  
Jeni L. Burnette ◽  
Jeffrey D. Green

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Yu

The human brain and the human language are precisely constructed together by evolution/genes, so that in the objective world, a human brain can tell a story to another brain in human language which describes an imagined multiplayer game; in this story, one player of the game represents the human brain itself. It’s possible that the human kind doesn’t really have a subjective world (doesn’t really have conscious experience). An individual has no control even over her choices. Her choices are controlled by the neural substrate. The neural substrate is controlled by the physical laws. So, her choices are controlled by the physical laws. So, she is powerless to do anything other than what she actually does. This is the view of fatalism. Specifically, this is the view of a totally global fatalism, where people have no control even over their choices, from the third-person perspective. And I just argued for fatalism by appeal to causal determinism. Psychologically, a third-person perspective and a new, dedicated personality state are required to bear the totally global fatalism, to avoid severe cognitive dissonance with our default first-person perspective and our original personality state.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document