wildercb/PrivacyTextBooks1.2 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 118
114. Rybczynski, Home, 18; see also Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 34
(describing crowded one-room homes of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century En
gland). Even in the sixteenth century, most homes lacked separate rooms. Ry
bczynski, Home, 18. When rooms were assigned purposes, the house became di
vided into distinct areas for women and men. See Hall, “Sweet Delights,” 91.
Houses in America followed the same pattern of development. Flaherty, Privacy in
Colonial New England, 33—44.
115. Mumford, City in History 285.
116. Stone, “Public and the Private,” 237.
117. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 40; see also Rybczynski, Home,
41 (“There were no corridors in these houses—each room was connected directly
to its neighbor—and architects prided themselves on aligning all the doors en
filade, so that there was an unobstructed view from one end of the house to the
other”).
118. Only the aristocracy could afford to purchase the space necessary to main
tain privacy. “The wealthy naturally increased the amount of private space avail
able to them, but for the rest of the population, the vast majority, the idea of pri
vacy did not extend beyond the bedroom, and perhaps not beyond the bed
curtains.” Orest Ranum, “Forms of Privatization: The Refuges of Intimacy,” in A
Notes to Pages 60-63
215
Histoiy o f Private Life, vol. 3, 225. The rise of the bourgeoisie made solitude more
widely available. See Joseph Bensman & Robert Lilienfeld, Between Public and Pri
vate: The Lost Boundaries o f the S elf31 (1979).
119. Stone, “Public and the Private,” 227, 232-34.
120. Mumford, City in History, 286, 243; Georges Duby, “Preface” to A History
of Private Life, vol. 2, xii.
121. Gini Graham Scott, M ind Your Own Business: The Battle for Personal Privacy
32 (1995); Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 40.
122. Roger Chartier, “Figures of Modernity: The Practical Impact of Writing,”
in A History o f Private Life, vol. 3, 134.
123. See Philippe Braunstein, “Toward Intimacy: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Centuries,” in A Histoty of Private Life, vol. 2, 538.
124. See Ranum, “Forms of Privatization,” 226-27.
125. Edward Shils, “Privacy: Its Constitution and Vicissitudes,” 31 Law and Con
tentporary Problems 281, 289 (1966).
126. Aries, “Introduction,” 1-2.
127. Hareven, “Home and the Family,” 259.
128. Mexican Constitution, art. 16 (amended 1996), quoted in Jorge A. Vagas,
“Privacy Rights Under Mexican Law: Emergence and Legal Configuration of a
Panoply of New Rights,” 27 Houston Journal of International Law 73, 89 (2004);
Constitution of the Republic of Chile art. 19 (1980); Germany, Basic Law
(Grundgesetz) art. 10 (1949); Constitution of Belgium art. 29 (1831, latest revision
1993); Czech Republic, Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms art. 7
(1993); quoted in Privacy and Human Rights, 352,480, 270, 399.
129. Robert Ellis Smith, Ben Franklin's Web Site: Privacy and Curiosity from Ply
mouth Rock to the Internet 23-25 (2000).
130. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 116-17.
131. Id. at 119, 122-23; Smith, Ben Franklin's Web Site, 50-51.
132. David J. Seipp, The Right to Privacy in American History 11 (1978).
133. Smith, Ben Franklin's Web Site, 50.
134. Cynthia A. Kiemer, Scandal at Bizarre: Rumor and Reputation in Jefferson's
America 64 (2004).
135. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 120, 121.
136. Smith, Ben Franklin's Web Site, 50-51.
137. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733 (1877).
138. See Seipp, Note, “Right to Privacy,” 1899.
139. Denis v. Leclerc, 1 Martin (O.S.) 297, 313 (La. 1811). See also Seipp, Note,
“Right to Privacy,” 1899 (collecting examples).
140. Seipp, Note, “Right to Privacy,” 1900.
141. Joseph Story, 2 Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence: As Administered in En
gland and America 261,262,264 (3d ed., 1843). The desire for privacy of letters was
not unique to America. In 1790 in France, “the National Assembly in Paris de
clared the secret of letters to be inviolable, and the French penal code incorporated
this sweeping declaration.” Many other countries enacted laws to safeguard the
privacy of letters. Peter Gay, Schnitzler's Century: The Making o f Middle-Class Cul
ture 1813-1914,258 (2002).
142. Seipp, Right to Privacy, 32 (quoting Western Union Rule 128).
143. Seipp, Note, “Right to Privacy,” 1901.
216
Notes to Pages 63-70
144. Seipp, Right to Privacy, 31-35.
145. Id. at 31-42.
146. Smith, Ben Franklin's Web Site, 157.
147. Claude S. Fischer, America Calling: A Social History o f the Telephone to 1940,
48, 71,241 (1992). Some party lines had as many as ten to thirty parties. “As late as
1930, 63 percent of Bell’s residential telephones were still on party lines. That pro
portion had decreased modesdy over the previous four years, but was actually
higher than it had been before World War I.” Id. at 83.
148. Samuel Dash, Richard F. Schwartz, & Robert E. Knowlton, The Eavesdrop
pers 8, 25-26 (1959).
149. Orin S. Kerr, “The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitu
tional Myths and the Case for Caution,” 102 Michigan Law Review 801, 841 (2004).
150. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 466 (1928).
151. Samuel Dash, The Intruders 74 (2004).
152. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438,470 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
153. Dash, Intruders\ 82; see Federal Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No.
90-351, §2520, 48 Stat. 1103 (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. §605).
154.389 U.S. 347,353 (1967).
155. Pub. L. No. 90-351, ch. 119,82 Stat. 212 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.
§§2510-2522).
156. See generally Privacy and Human Rights.
157. B. Moore, Privacy, 59.
158. Id. at 67, 70.
159. Alan Wesdn, Privacy and Freedom 12 (1967).
160. Adam D. Moore, “Privacy: Its Meaning and Value,” 40 American Philosoph
ical Quarterly 215, 221-22, 223 (2003).
161. Restatement (Second) of Torts §652D cmt. h.
162. Misery v. Interim National Medical & Dental Council, 1998 (4) SA 1127,
available at http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-worldlii/disp.pl/za/cases/ZACC/1998/10

114. Rybczynski, Home, 18; see also Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 34

(describing crowded one-room homes of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century En

gland). Even in the sixteenth century, most homes lacked separate rooms. Ry

bczynski, Home, 18. When rooms were assigned purposes, the house became di

vided into distinct areas for women and men. See Hall, “Sweet Delights,” 91.

Houses in America followed the same pattern of development. Flaherty, Privacy in

Colonial New England, 33—44.

115. Mumford, City in History 285.

116. Stone, “Public and the Private,” 237.

117. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 40; see also Rybczynski, Home,

41 (“There were no corridors in these houses—each room was connected directly

to its neighbor—and architects prided themselves on aligning all the doors en

filade, so that there was an unobstructed view from one end of the house to the

other”).

118. Only the aristocracy could afford to purchase the space necessary to main

tain privacy. “The wealthy naturally increased the amount of private space avail

able to them, but for the rest of the population, the vast majority, the idea of pri

vacy did not extend beyond the bedroom, and perhaps not beyond the bed

curtains.” Orest Ranum, “Forms of Privatization: The Refuges of Intimacy,” in A

Notes to Pages 60-63

215

Histoiy o f Private Life, vol. 3, 225. The rise of the bourgeoisie made solitude more

widely available. See Joseph Bensman & Robert Lilienfeld, Between Public and Pri

vate: The Lost Boundaries o f the S elf31 (1979).

119. Stone, “Public and the Private,” 227, 232-34.

120. Mumford, City in History, 286, 243; Georges Duby, “Preface” to A History

of Private Life, vol. 2, xii.

121. Gini Graham Scott, M ind Your Own Business: The Battle for Personal Privacy

32 (1995); Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 40.

122. Roger Chartier, “Figures of Modernity: The Practical Impact of Writing,”

in A History o f Private Life, vol. 3, 134.

123. See Philippe Braunstein, “Toward Intimacy: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth

Centuries,” in A Histoty of Private Life, vol. 2, 538.

124. See Ranum, “Forms of Privatization,” 226-27.

125. Edward Shils, “Privacy: Its Constitution and Vicissitudes,” 31 Law and Con

tentporary Problems 281, 289 (1966).

126. Aries, “Introduction,” 1-2.

127. Hareven, “Home and the Family,” 259.

128. Mexican Constitution, art. 16 (amended 1996), quoted in Jorge A. Vagas,

“Privacy Rights Under Mexican Law: Emergence and Legal Configuration of a

Panoply of New Rights,” 27 Houston Journal of International Law 73, 89 (2004);

Constitution of the Republic of Chile art. 19 (1980); Germany, Basic Law

(Grundgesetz) art. 10 (1949); Constitution of Belgium art. 29 (1831, latest revision

1993); Czech Republic, Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms art. 7

(1993); quoted in Privacy and Human Rights, 352,480, 270, 399.

129. Robert Ellis Smith, Ben Franklin's Web Site: Privacy and Curiosity from Ply

mouth Rock to the Internet 23-25 (2000).

130. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 116-17.

131. Id. at 119, 122-23; Smith, Ben Franklin's Web Site, 50-51.

132. David J. Seipp, The Right to Privacy in American History 11 (1978).

133. Smith, Ben Franklin's Web Site, 50.

134. Cynthia A. Kiemer, Scandal at Bizarre: Rumor and Reputation in Jefferson's

America 64 (2004).

135. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, 120, 121.

136. Smith, Ben Franklin's Web Site, 50-51.

137. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733 (1877).

138. See Seipp, Note, “Right to Privacy,” 1899.

139. Denis v. Leclerc, 1 Martin (O.S.) 297, 313 (La. 1811). See also Seipp, Note,

“Right to Privacy,” 1899 (collecting examples).

140. Seipp, Note, “Right to Privacy,” 1900.

141. Joseph Story, 2 Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence: As Administered in En

gland and America 261,262,264 (3d ed., 1843). The desire for privacy of letters was

not unique to America. In 1790 in France, “the National Assembly in Paris de

clared the secret of letters to be inviolable, and the French penal code incorporated

this sweeping declaration.” Many other countries enacted laws to safeguard the

privacy of letters. Peter Gay, Schnitzler's Century: The Making o f Middle-Class Cul

ture 1813-1914,258 (2002).

142. Seipp, Right to Privacy, 32 (quoting Western Union Rule 128).

143. Seipp, Note, “Right to Privacy,” 1901.

216

Notes to Pages 63-70

144. Seipp, Right to Privacy, 31-35.

145. Id. at 31-42.

146. Smith, Ben Franklin's Web Site, 157.

147. Claude S. Fischer, America Calling: A Social History o f the Telephone to 1940,

48, 71,241 (1992). Some party lines had as many as ten to thirty parties. “As late as

1930, 63 percent of Bell’s residential telephones were still on party lines. That pro

portion had decreased modesdy over the previous four years, but was actually

higher than it had been before World War I.” Id. at 83.

148. Samuel Dash, Richard F. Schwartz, & Robert E. Knowlton, The Eavesdrop

pers 8, 25-26 (1959).

149. Orin S. Kerr, “The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitu

tional Myths and the Case for Caution,” 102 Michigan Law Review 801, 841 (2004).

150. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 466 (1928).

151. Samuel Dash, The Intruders 74 (2004).

152. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438,470 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

153. Dash, Intruders\ 82; see Federal Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No.

90-351, §2520, 48 Stat. 1103 (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. §605).

154.389 U.S. 347,353 (1967).

155. Pub. L. No. 90-351, ch. 119,82 Stat. 212 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.

§§2510-2522).

156. See generally Privacy and Human Rights.

157. B. Moore, Privacy, 59.

158. Id. at 67, 70.

159. Alan Wesdn, Privacy and Freedom 12 (1967).

160. Adam D. Moore, “Privacy: Its Meaning and Value,” 40 American Philosoph

ical Quarterly 215, 221-22, 223 (2003).

161. Restatement (Second) of Torts §652D cmt. h.

162. Misery v. Interim National Medical & Dental Council, 1998 (4) SA 1127,

available at http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-worldlii/disp.pl/za/cases/ZACC/1998/10