You are on page 1of 13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 I. Introduction A. Technology and the Law (1-10) 1. Sidis v.

F-R Publishing (pg. 3) a. Intent does not matter in a privacy violation B. Origins and Types (10-39) 1. Lake v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc. (pg. 29) C. Perspectives on Privacy (40-78) 1. State v. Rhodes (pg. 70) II. Privacy and the Media A. Information Gathering (80-107) 1. Intrusion upon Seclusion: Restatement (Second) of Torts 652B (pg. 80) a. Intentional intrusion; solitude or seclusion; highly offensive b. Nader v. General Motors Corp. (pg. 81) i. No cause of action for asking questions ii. Cause of action for wiretapping b/c it was within zone of selcusion c. Dietemann v. Time, Inc. (pg. 87) i. Heightened sense of seclusion in the home ii. Dietemann had no public presence d. Desnick v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc. (pg. 88) i. No violation b/c it was not in his solitude or seclusion; this occurred in his business ii. Deception is not a factor iii. Consent can be the result of deception and has nothing to do with privacy iv. No intimate facts were reveled e. Food Lion, Inc. v. ABC (pg. 92) i. Reporters had a duty of loyalty to Food Lion once they became employed f. Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (pg. 94) i. Triable issues: interior of helicopter, conversations with nurse ii. Non-triable issues: camera at scene iii. Rule of non-protection: the press in its newsgathering activities enjoys no immunity or exemption from generally applicable laws g. Paparazzi i. Galella v. Onassis (pg. 99) a. The interference allowed may be no greater than that necessary to protect the overriding public interest h. Video Voyeurism i. Washington v. Glas (pg. 107) B. Disclosure of Truthful Information (108-180) 1. Publicity Given to Private Life: Restatement (Second) of Torts 652D (pg. 109) a. Publicity; privacy of another; highly offensive; not of legitimate concern to the public b. Private Matters i. Gill v. Hearst Publishing Co. (pg. 110) a. Decreased expectation of privacy in a public place ii. Daily Times Democrat v. Graham (pg. 115) a. Not of legitimate concern, offensive to modesty or decency

Page 1 of

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 b. To hold that one who is involuntarily and instantaneously enmeshed in an embarrassing pose forfeits her right of privacy merely because she happened at the moment to be part of a public scene would be illogical, wrong, and unjust iii. Virgil v. Time, Inc. (pg. 119) a. Revocation of consent: once given, consent can be revoked c. Publicity i. Miller v. Motorola, Inc. (pg. 121) a. Disclosure of the info to a sufficient number of people makes it public b. Special relationship with the public to whom the info is disclosed d. Newsworthiness i. Newsworthiness Tests a. Leave it to the Press to decide b. Customs and Conventions in the Community c. Nexus Test some tie between the complaining individual and the matter of legitimate public interest ii. Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (pg. 123) a. Legitimate concern to the public whether the president had a bias against homosexuals iii. Neff v. Time Inc. (pg. 129) a. Rule: if you dont want to be misportrayed, think twice about providing consent to appear iv. Barber v. Time Inc. (pg. 132) a. The condition is newsworthy but not the name of the ill person v. Shulman v. Group W Productions Inc. (pg. 136) a. Conversation between nurse and patient was newsworthy; logical nexus between the complaining individual and the matter of legitimate public interest b. Broadcast could have been edited but not required b/c the info was newsworthy vi. Bonome v. Kaysen (pg. 139) a. People have the right to tell their own stories e. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (pg. 148) i. Info in public file that is lawfully obtained can be disclosed without sanctions f. The Florida Star v. B.J.F. (pg. 155) i. Truthful publication is constitutionally protected ii. Info in the public domain will not be protected from release unless state has a compelling reason for keeping it private g. Bartnicki v. Vopper (pg. 169) i. Lawfully obtained newsworthy info that was unlawfully obtained by a third party may be published and the party that obtained the info lawfully is not liable 2. Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia (2006) a. Give up privacy right when walking in public sphere; surrender expectation of privacy when you are out in public

Page 2 of

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 b. Legitimate concern to the public is art; DiCorcia is an artist and was practicing his art C. Dissemination of False or Misleading Information (181-219) 1. Defamation a. Communications Decency Act (CDA) i. Blanket immunity for ISPs for statements on the internet under 230 b. Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (pg. 185) c. Blumenthal v. Drudge (pg. 189) i. Even if ISP is active in making the content of others available, it has immunity d. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (pg. 194) i. Public figures have no ability to bring causes of action against publishers of info about them without showing actual malice on the part of the publisher e. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (pg. 198) i. Private individuals deserve more protection than public figures ii. Person has to be out in the public and putting himself in the public eye to be a public figure iii. Only have to prove that the statements are defamatory when private individual brings suit 2. Publicity Placing Person in False Light: Restatement (Second) of Torts 652E (pg. 205) a. Publicity, highly offensive, with knowledge or reckless disregard of the falsity b. Time, Inc. v. Hill (pg. 208) i. Allowed to tell a story as long as you dont know it is false or act with reckless disregard 3. Infliction of Emotional Distress a. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell i. Public figures cant recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the statement is false or reckless disregard b. Snyder v. Phelps (pg. 214) i. 1st amendment protects speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern D. Appropriation of Name or Likeness: Restatement (Second) of Torts 652C (pg. 220) 1. Carson v. Heres Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. (pg. 223) a. No invasion of privacy, but publicity right was invaded b. Making use of a familiar phrase for commercial gain is an infringement of the right of publicity 2. Raymen v. United Senior Association, Inc. (pg. 230) a. Misuse was not commercial, so not to his/her use or benefit 3. Finger v. Omni Publications International, Ltd. (pg. 234) a. Newsworthiness exception to appropriation claim 4. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (pg. 239) a. 1st and 14th amendments do not immunize the press from broadcasting a performers entire act w/out his consent 5. Estate of Presley v. Russen (pg. 241) 6. Sondik v. Kimmel (2011) III. Privacy and Law Enforcement (247-312) A. The Fourth Amendment and Emerging Technology 1. Ex parte Jackson (pg. 249) Page 3 of

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 a. Expectation of privacy in mail 2. Olmstead v. Unite States (pg. 256) a. No search or seizure; no trespass into the home so no violation of the 4th Amendment b. Conversations not in the category of protection 3. Lopez v. United States (pg. 263) 4. Katz v. United States (pg. 265) a. 4th Amendment protects the person, not just places b. Harlan concurrence: reasonable expectation of privacy (subjective and objective) 5. United States v. White (pg. 272) a. No constitutional right to exclude testimony b/c there is more reliable testimony 6. Smith v. Maryland (pg. 276) 7. United States v. Place (pg. 285) a. Right of privacy is not impaired by an extra perception (i.e. dog sniffing) 8. Illinois v. Caballes (pg. 286) 9. California v. Greenwood (pg. 290) a. No right of privacy in a persons garbage once it is out in the public 10. Florida v. Riley (pg. 293) a. 11. Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (pg. 301) 12. Kyllo v. United States (pg. 306) 13. People v. Weaver (2009) 14. US v. Jones (2012) a. Placement of GPS on a vehicle is a search and is subject to the 4th Amendment B. Federal Electronic Surveillance Law (313-332) 1. Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) (pg. 315) a. Wiretap Act (Title I) i. Wire communication: involves human voice through a wire; highest level of protection; only applies to intentional interceptions ii. Warrant is required; order can last for up to 20 days and can be renewed b. Stored Communications Act (SCA) i. Oral communications: involves everything else; uttered by a person with that persons expectation that it would not be intercepted ii. Exclusionary rule does not apply to violations c. Pen Register Act i. Electronic communication: signs or signals that are neither oral transfer or oral communication ii. Exclusionary rule does not apply 2. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) (pg. 329) a. Requires all telecommunications providers to be able to isolate and intercept electronic communications and be able to deliver them to law enforcement personnel 3. USA Patriot Act (pg. 331) a. Permits federal govt to investigate acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a govt by Page 4 of

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 intimidation or coercion, to affect the conduct of the govt by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping b. Delay notice of search warrants c. New definition of pen registers and trap and trace device i. Relaxed standard; only need to certify relevance to an investigation C. Digital Searches and Seizures (333-376) 1. Trulock v. Freeh (pg. 335) 2. United States v. Andrus (pg. 336) 3. United States v. Arnold (pg. 341) a. When seeking to cross the border, the border patrol agents are free to search persons including their laptops 4. United States v. Cotterman (pg. 342) a. Permissible to take Ds laptop for 2 days and 170 miles away to search it so long as property has not been officially cleared for entry into the US and remains in the control of the govt; any further search is simply a continuation of the original border search 5. Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service (pg. 345) a. Violated title II and not title I b/c emails are stored communications 6. United States v. Warshak (pg. 351) a. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of their emails b. Govt cant compel an ISP to turn over the content of emails w/out a warrant 7. United States v. Hambrick (pg. 357) a. No reasonable expectation of privacy in ISP records 8. McVeigh v. Cohen (pg. 360) 9. United States v. Forrester (pg. 366) a. IP addresses and URLs are analogous to pen registers; information used to transmit messages is not protected 10. United States v. Scarfo (pg. 373) a. Key logging devices; not a violation D. National Security and Foreign Intelligence (377-428) 1. United States v. United States District Court (The Keith Case) (pg. 378) 2. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) a. Surveillance can occur based upon a standard determined by the court b. Empowers surveillance based on national security concern, FISC 3. Global Relief Foundation, Inc. v. ONeil a. If it is a matter of national security, the court leaves it to the executive branch 4. United States v. Isa (pg. 390) a. Under FISA, govt can retain evidence of a crime regardless of the minimization procedures required by FISA 5. In re Sealed Case (pg. 397) 6. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush (pg. 409) 7. In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation [I] (pg. 415) a. Once you have a state secret, there can be no cause of action 8. In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation [II] (pg. 416) a. Entire existence of the program was secret so it is cloaked in the State Secrets Privilege Page 5 of

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 9. Hepting v. AT&T Corp. (pg. 420) a. P had a cause of action, but not damages alleged 10. In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation [III] IV. Health and Genetic Privacy A. Confidentiality of Medical Information (430-479) 1. Jaffee v. Redmond (pg. 432) a. Medical privilege extends to psychotherapists; fed rules dont prevent privilege from being extend to psychotherapy 2. McCormick v. England (pg. 437) a. Unauthorized revelation of confidential medical info should be protected without regard to the degree of its offensiveness 3. Hammonds v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (pg. 439) a. Legal violation 4. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (pg. 446) a. Duty to inform the victim if there is a foreseeable harm 5. McIntosh v. Milano (pg. 453) a. Therapist may have a duty to protect a potential victim 6. Pate v. Threlkel (pg. 457) a. Duty to warn of a genetically transferrable disease will be satisfied by warning the patient 7. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) (pg. 463) 8. Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Ashcroft (pg. 475) B. Constitutional Protection of Medical Information (480-525) 1. Griswold v. Connecticut (pg. 481) 2. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (pg. 488) a. Statute placing undue burden on ability to get an abortion is unconstitutional 3. Lawrence v. Texas (pg. 496) 4. Whalen v. Roe (pg. 503) a. Neither the immediate nor the threatened impact of patient identification requirements on either the reputation or the independence of patients is sufficient to constitute an invasion of any right or liberty protected by the 14th Amendment b. No invasion of any right or liberty protected by the 14th Amendment c. Two different kinds of interests addressed by Court i. The individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters: Constitutional right to information privacy ii. The interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions: Decisional privacy 5. Westinghouse Test: seven factors that should be considered in deciding whether an intrusion into an individuals privacy is justified a. Type of record requested b. The information it does or might contain c. The potential harm in any subsequent nonconsensual disclosure d. The injury from disclosure to the relationship in which the record was generated e. The adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure f. The degree of need for access g. Whether there is an express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other recognizable public interest militating toward access 6. Carter v. Broadlawns Medical Center (pg. 512)

Page 6 of

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 a. No right of chaplain to access patients medical records w/out express approval by the individual patient or his guardian b. Right of an individual not to have his private affairs made public by the government 7. Doe v. Borough of Barrington (pg. 513) a. An individuals privacy interest in medical information and records is not absolute; court must determine whether the societal interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest involved b. Govt must show a compelling state interest in breaching that privacy 8. Doe v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (pg. 516) a. Disclosure of prescription drug records for the purpose of monitoring health plans, in particular, disclosure of use of Retrovir, thereby disclosing plaintiffs AIDS condition was not a constitutional violation of his privacy as he had already published it b. The intrusion was a minimal intrusion and insufficient to constitute a constitutional violation 9. Ferguson v. City of Charleston (pg. 522) a. Policy of testing pregnant women for drug use was so closely calculated for law enforcement purposes as to be an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment 10. In re J.G. (pg. 525) a. AIDS testing sex offenders did not violate their privacy interests as the balancing was clearly in favor of the rights of victims to know if they had contracted the disease as a result of the attacks (compelling interest in making information available when it directly affects the physical and mental well-being of survivors of sexual assault) b. Results of testing were not to be used in criminal prosecution. C. Genetic Information (526-560) 1. Moore v. Regents of the University of California (pg. 527) a. Cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent b. No cause of action for conversion 2. United States v. Kincade (pg. 547) a. Compulsory DNA profiling of qualified federal offenders is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances 3. NASA v. Nelson (2011) a. The Governments collection of information pursuant to national security concerns on a SF 85 and Form 42 is permissible b. Background check requirement did not violate the right; not a violation for the govt to collect this kind of information, there is a right to information privacy but it was not violated c. Thomas and Scalia concurrence: there is no federal constitutional right to information privacy V. Privacy of Association and Identity (561-562) A. Privacy of Group Associations (563-581) 1. NAACP v. State of Alabama (pg. 563) a. No justification for the disclosure of the names of the members 2. Buckley v. Valeo (pg. 565) 3. Barenblatt v. United States (pg. 567) a. Balance between the individual and the government interest here at stake must be struck in favor of the latter, and that Page 7 of

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 therefore the provisions of the 1st Amendment have not been offended 4. Baird v. State Bar (pg. 571) a. The govt cant attempt to conduct broad and sweeping inquiries into peoples political views or group associations 5. Laird v. Tatum (pg. 572) a. Test is the established principle that there must be a showing that i. One has sustained, or ii. is immediately in danger of sustaining, a direct injury to 1st Amendment rights as a result of that action 6. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. Tate (pg. 579) a. Subjective chill is not a substitute for a claim of specific present harm or threat of specific future harm B. Anonymity (582-613) 1. Talley v. State of California (pg. 582) a. Anonymous pamphlets are ok 2. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (pg. 583) a. Anonymous political speech is protected by the 1st Amendment 3. ACLU v. Miller (pg. 591) a. Georgia statute prohibiting false identification by email; statute unconstitutional b. Statute has content-based restrictions on speech not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest/vagueness 4. Doe v. Cahill (pg. 595) a. Defamation plaintiff must satisfy a summary judgment standard before obtaining the identity of an anonymous defendant 5. Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton (pg. 602) a. Law enforcement officials must demonstrate a sufficiently compelling need for the specific customer purchase record sought from an innocent third-party bookstore b. Court must engage in a more specific inquiry as to whether law enforcement officials have a compelling need for the precise and specific information sought C. Identification (614-634) 1. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court (pg. 618) a. A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with the 4th Amendment 2. Greidinger v. Davis (pg. 625) a. Cannot require SSN to register to vote if the SSN will be publicly disclosed VI. Privacy and Government Records Databases A. Public Access to Government Records (635-697) 1. Doe v. Shakur (pg. 637) a. P filed civil complaint using pseudonym; legitimate privacy concern outweighed certain considerations i. P chose to bring the suit ii. Action is a civil suit for damages iii. D has been publicly accused iv. Public has right of access to the courts 2. Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) a. Purpose: to allow the public access to see the way the govt works Page 8 of

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 b. Exemptions: 552(b) (pg. 642) exemptions are permissive (agency is not required to apply exemption) and only the govt agency can raise exemptions 6 and 7(C) i. Matters specifically authorized by Executive order to be kept secret and are properly classified pursuant to Executive order ii. Matters related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency iii. Matters specifically exempted by statute iv. Trade secrets and commercial or financial info obtained from a person and privileged or confidential v. Inter-agency or intra-agency memos or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency vi. Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy vii. Records or info compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent that the production a. Could reasonably be expected to interfere w/ enforcement proceedings b. Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication c. Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy d. Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source e. Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law f. Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual viii.Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions ix. Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells 3. United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (pg. 644) a. A third partys request for law enforcement records or information about a private citizen can reasonably be expected to invade that citizens privacy b. When the request seeks no official information about a govt agency, but merely records that the govt happens to be storing, the invasion of privacy is unwarranted 4. World Publishing Company v. DOJ a. Mug shots are just like rap sheets and their disclosure does not show what the govt is up to 5. National Archives and Records Administration v. Favish a. FOIA recognizes surviving family members right to personal privacy with respect to their close relatives death-scene images Page 9 of

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 6. Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T (pg. 655) a. While FOIA defined person to include corporations, this definition is not dispositive for the word personal in exemption 7(C) 7. Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp. (pg. 662) 8. Kallstrom v. City of Columbus [Kallstrom I] (pg. 669) a. Officers privacy interests do not implicate a fundamental liberty interest, specifically their interest in preserving their lives and the lives of their family members, as well as preserving their personal security and bodily integrity 9. Kallstrom v. City of Columbus [Kallstrom II] (pg. 671) a. The media should have access to the records 10. Paul v. Davis (pg. 678) 11. Cline v. Rogers (pg. 681) a. Ones criminal history is not a private personal matter since arrest and conviction info are matters of public record 12. Scheetz v. The Morning Call, Inc. (pg. 682) a. Reputation alone is not a liberty or property interest within the meaning of the due process clause 13. Paul P. v. Verniero (pg. 687) 14. FCC v. AT&T (2011) 15. FAA v. Cooper (2012) B. Government Records of Personal Information (698-756) 1. Quinn v. Stone (pg. 704) 2. Doe v. Chao (pg. 713) a. Privacy Act violation requires actual damages; cant just sue for anything that is not actual damages under the privacy act i. Dissent: actual damages include pecuniary damages 3. J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (pg. 723) a. Privacy Act doesnt prohibit an agency from maintaining records about an individuals 1st Amendment activities if the info was pertinent to an authorized law enforcement activity when the agency collected the info 4. United States v. Sokolow (pg. 739) a. Must consider the totality of the circumstances 5. Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights a. Individual Control: consumers have a right to exercise control over what personal data companies collect from them and how they use it b. Transparency: consumers have a right to easily understandable and accessible information about privacy and security practices c. Respect for Context: consumers have a right to expect that companies will collect, use, and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide that data d. Security: consumers have a right to secure and responsible handling of personal data e. Access and Accuracy: consumers have a right to access and correct personal data in usable formats, in a manner that is appropriate to the sensitivity of the data and the risk of adverse consequences to consumers if the data is inaccurate f. Focused Collection: consumers have a right to have reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain Page 10 of

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 g. Accountability: consumers have a right to have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights 6. Arizona v. Evans (pg. 746) a. Categorical exception to the exclusionary rule for clerical errors of court employees 7. United States v. Ellison (pg. 751) a. No reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate number 8. Reno v. Condon (pg. 756) a. DPPA is a proper exercise of Congress authority VII. Privacy of Financial and Commercial Data A. The Financial Services Industry and Data (757-798) 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (pg. 758) a. Permissible uses of credit reports (pg. 759) 2. Smith v. Bob Smith Chevrolet, Inc. (pg. 765) 3. Sarver v. Experian Information Solutions (pg. 772) 4. The Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act (GLB) (pg. 780) 5. Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank (pg. 788) 6. Sloane v. Equifax Information Services, LLC (pg. 792) a. Under FCRA credit reporting agency has a duty to act when an error is brought to their attention B. Commercial Entities and Personal Data (799-879) 1. Dwyer v. American Express Co. 2. Shibley v. Time, Inc. 3. Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc. (pg. 804) 4. In re Northwest Airlines Privacy Litigation (pg. 814) 5. FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 45 (pg. 821) a. The FTC can investigate any violation that arises from unfair or deceptive practices in or affecting commerce 6. In the Matter of Google Inc. (pg. 821) 7. The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) (pg. 840) 8. Dirkes v. Borough of Runnemede (pg. 841) 9. Daniel v. Cantell (pg. 843) 10. Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (pg. 847) 11. Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA) 12. In re Pharmatrack, Inc. Privacy Litigation (pg. 850) a. No ECPA violation 13. Dyer v. Northwest Airlines Corp. 14. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (pg. 859) 15. Creative Computing v. Getloaded.com LLC (pg. 860) 16. United States v. Drew (pg. 863) a. Violation of a websites terms of usage by itself does not constitute a violation of CFAA warranting criminal sanctions 17. Telephone Consumer Protections Act (TCPA) (pg. 867) 18. CAN-SPAM Act (pg. 869) 19. Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores (pg. 873) C. Data Security (880-899) 1. Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp 2. In the Matter of Reed Elsevier, Inc. and Seisint D. First Amendment Limitation on Privacy Regulations (900-925) 1. Rowan v. United States Post Office Department (pg. 901) a. People are allowed to take name off of a list to prevent unwanted mail 2. Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (pg. 902) Page 11 of 13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 a. Right to be removed from a calling list is permissible 3. U.S. West, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (pg. 905) 4. Trans Union Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission 5. Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. (pg. 917) a. A restriction on speech violates the 1st Amendment even if clothed in privacy law E. Government Access to Private Sector Records (926-946) 1. Gonzales v. Google (pg. 928) a. 3rd party doctrine; no privacy right in a persons searches on search engine 2. The Bank Secrecy Act (pg. 932) 3. California Bankers Association v. Shultz (pg. 932) 4. United States v. Miller (pg. 934) 5. The USA Patriot Act 215 (pg. 939) 6. Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily (pg. 943) 7. Privacy Protection Act (PPA) (pg. 946) Privacy and Place A. Privacy at Home (947-963) 1. Stanley v. Georgia (pg. 948) a. States have the power to regulate obscenity, but that power does not extend to the mere possession by an individual in the privacy of his own home 2. Wilson v. Layne (pg. 952) a. It is a violation of the 4th Amendment for the police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of the third parties in the home is not in the aid of the execution of the warrant 3. Georgia v. Randolph (pg. 959) a. A physically present co-occupants stated refusal to permit a search renders a warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him B. Privacy at School (964-985) 1. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (pg. 964) a. School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority as long as search is justified in reasonableness 2. Vernonia School District v. Acton (pg. 970) 3. Board of Education v. Earls (pg. 976) 4. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (pg. 981) 5. Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo (pg. 982) C. Privacy at Work (986-1060) 1. OConnor v. Ortega (pg. 989) a. Public employer intrusions on the constitutionally protected privacy interests of government employees for non-investigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of workrelated misconduct, should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances 2. K-Mart Corp. v. Trotti (pg. 998) 3. Thompson v. Johnson County Community College (pg. 997) 4. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (pg. 1000) 5. Borse v. Piece Goods Shop (pg. 1008) a. Dismissing an employee who refused to consent to urinalysis testing and to personal property searches would violate public policy if the testing tortuously invades the employees privacy 6. Baggs v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (pg. 1012) Page 12 of

VIII.

13

Privacy in the Digital Age - Lupu Spring 2012 7. City of Ontario v. Quon (pg. 1042) a. Even if he could assume some level of privacy would inhere in his messages, it would not have been reasonable for Quon to conclude that his messages were in all circumstances immune from scrutiny b. Search was reasonable b/c the phones were subject to audits per department policies

Page 13 of 13

You might also like