wildercb/PrivacyTextBooks1.2 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 118
that “the mere fact a person can be seen by others does not mean that person
cannot legally be ‘secluded’ ” (quoting Huskey v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 632 F. Supp.
1282,1287-88 (N.D. HI. 1986)).
342. Sanders v. American Broad. Co., 978 P.2d 67, 72 (Cal. 1999).
343. Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale 63 (1986).
344. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479,484 (1965).
345. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,453 (1972) (emphasis omitted).
346. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973).
347. See, e.g., Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925) (invali
dating an Oregon law requiring parents to send their children to public school be
cause it “unreasonably interfere[d] with the liberty of parents_to direct the up
bringing and education of children under their control”).
348. Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 1352 (2d ed. 1988).
Notes to Pages 166-175
243
349. Louis Henldn, “Privacy and Autonomy,” 74 Columbia Law Review 1410,
1410-11 (1974).
350. Neil M. Richards, “The Information Privacy Project,” 94 Georgetown Law
Journal 1087, 1095, 1108 (2006).
351. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 (1977).
352. See, e.g., In re Crawford, 194 F.3d 954, 958 (9th Cir. 1999) (“We agree ...
that the indiscriminate public disclosure of [certain personal information! may
implicate the constitutional right to informational privacy”); Walls v. City of Pe
tersburg, 895 F.2d 188, 192 (4th Cir. 1990) (“Personal, private information in
which an individual has a reasonable expectation of confidentiality is protected by
one’s constitutional right to privacy”); Kimberlin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 788 F.2d
434, 438 (7th Cir. 1986) (“Whether or not Kimberlin has a privacy interest in the
information ... depends upon whether he has a reasonable expectation of privacy
in the information”); Barry v. City of New York, 712 F.2d 1554, 1559 (2d Cir.
1983) (“Most courts considering the question ... appear to agree that privacy' of
personal matters is a [constitutionally] protected interest”); J.P. v. DeSanti, 653
F.2d 1080, 1090 (6th Cir. 1981) (“Our opinion does not mean ... there is no con
stitutional right to non-disclosure of private information”); United States v.
Wesdnghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 577 (3d Cir. 1980) (recognizing that
W halen protects “the right not to have an individual’s private affairs made public by
the government”); Plante v. Gonzalez, 575 F.2d 1119, 1132 (5th Cir. 1978) (“There
is another strand to the right to privacy properly called the right to confidentiality”).
353. Whalen, 429 U.S. at 600.
354. Id. at 600-02.
355. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty 13 (David Spitz, ed. 1975).
356. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, F raternity 161-62 (1967 ed.)
(1873).
357. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251-52 (1891).
358. Richards, “Information Privacy Project,” 1108.
359. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969).
360. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dis
senting), quoted in Stanely v. Georgia, 394 U.S. at 564.
361. Id. at 565.
362. Post, “Social Foundations of Privacy,” 973.
363. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578, 567, 562 (2003).
364. Id. at 572 (quoting Model Penal Code §213.2 cmt. 2 (1980) and citing
Model Penal Code Commentary 277-78 (Tentative Draft No. 4, 1955)). For an in
teresting discussion of Lawrence and public versus private places, see Lior Jacob
Strahilevitz, “Consent, Aesthetics, and the Boundaries of Sexual Privacy After
Lawrence v. Texas,” 54 DePaul Law Review 671 (2005).
365. McLaren, Sexual Blackmail, 6, 8.
6. Privacy: A New Understanding
1. Quoted in Joanne B. Freeman, “Slander, Poison, Whispers, and Fame: Jef
ferson’s ‘Anas’ and Political Gossip in the Early Republic,” 15 Journal o f the Early
Republic 25, 31 (1995).
2. Rodney A. Smolla, Law o f D efam ation 9-14, 9-19, 9-17 (2d ed. 2000).
244
Notes to Pages 115-119
3. Eric H. Reiter, “Personality and Patrimony: Comparative Perspectives on
the Right to One’s Image,” 76 Tulane Law Review 673, 676-78 (2002).
4. Paul Sieghart, quoted in Colin J. Bennett, Regulating Privacy: D ata Protection
and Public Policy in Europe and the U nited States 28 (1992).
5. Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” 4 H arvard
Law Review 193, 193, 194, 197 (1890).
6. Id. at 196.
7. Nancy Levit, “Ethereal Torts,” 61 George Washington Law Review 136, 141
(1992); see also James M. Fischer, U nderstanding Remedies 124 (1999) (courts were
reluctant to award damages for emotional distress because of “concerns over gen
uineness, reliability, and the specter of unlimited liability for trivial losses”).
8. Smolla, Law o f Defamation, 11-41 to 11-43.
9. Restatement (Second) of Torts §46.
10. Levit, “Ethereal Torts,” 150.
11. See Glen Weissenberger, Federal Evidence §501 (4th ed. 2001); Upjohn Co. v.
United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981) (attorney-client); Jaffee v. Redmond, 518
U.S. 1 (1996) (psychotherapist-patient).
12. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957) (“Merely to summon
a witness and compel him, against his will, to disclose the nature of his past ex
pressions and associations is a measure of governmental interference in these
matters”); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 490 (1960) (striking down statute
requiring teachers to provide a list to the government of all the groups they
were members of); Baird v. State Bar, 401 U.S. 1, 6 (1971) (“[W]hen a State at
tempts to make inquiries about a person’s beliefs or associations, its power is
limited by the First Amendment. Broad and sweeping state inquiries into these
protected areas . .. discourage citizens from exercising rights protected by the
Constitution”).
13. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958).
14. Alexis de Tocqueville, 2 Democracy in Am erica 196 (Phillips Bradley ed. 1945).
15. For a comparison of privacy law and environmental law, see Dennis D.
Hirsch, “Protecting the Inner Environment: What Privacy Regulation Can Learn
from Environmental Law,” 41 Georgia Law Review 1 (2006).
16. Daniel J. Solove, The D igital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Inform ation
A ge 99 (2004).
17. See, e.g., Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 1, 13 (1972) (confronting the alleged
“chilling effect” that army surveillance had on “lawful and peaceful civilian politi
cal activity”).

that “the mere fact a person can be seen by others does not mean that person

cannot legally be ‘secluded’ ” (quoting Huskey v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 632 F. Supp.

1282,1287-88 (N.D. HI. 1986)).

342. Sanders v. American Broad. Co., 978 P.2d 67, 72 (Cal. 1999).

343. Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale 63 (1986).

344. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479,484 (1965).

345. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,453 (1972) (emphasis omitted).

346. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973).

347. See, e.g., Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925) (invali

dating an Oregon law requiring parents to send their children to public school be

cause it “unreasonably interfere[d] with the liberty of parents_to direct the up

bringing and education of children under their control”).

348. Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 1352 (2d ed. 1988).

Notes to Pages 166-175

243

349. Louis Henldn, “Privacy and Autonomy,” 74 Columbia Law Review 1410,

1410-11 (1974).

350. Neil M. Richards, “The Information Privacy Project,” 94 Georgetown Law

Journal 1087, 1095, 1108 (2006).

351. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 (1977).

352. See, e.g., In re Crawford, 194 F.3d 954, 958 (9th Cir. 1999) (“We agree ...

that the indiscriminate public disclosure of [certain personal information! may

implicate the constitutional right to informational privacy”); Walls v. City of Pe

tersburg, 895 F.2d 188, 192 (4th Cir. 1990) (“Personal, private information in

which an individual has a reasonable expectation of confidentiality is protected by

one’s constitutional right to privacy”); Kimberlin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 788 F.2d

434, 438 (7th Cir. 1986) (“Whether or not Kimberlin has a privacy interest in the

information ... depends upon whether he has a reasonable expectation of privacy

in the information”); Barry v. City of New York, 712 F.2d 1554, 1559 (2d Cir.

1983) (“Most courts considering the question ... appear to agree that privacy' of

personal matters is a [constitutionally] protected interest”); J.P. v. DeSanti, 653

F.2d 1080, 1090 (6th Cir. 1981) (“Our opinion does not mean ... there is no con

stitutional right to non-disclosure of private information”); United States v.

Wesdnghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 577 (3d Cir. 1980) (recognizing that

W halen protects “the right not to have an individual’s private affairs made public by

the government”); Plante v. Gonzalez, 575 F.2d 1119, 1132 (5th Cir. 1978) (“There

is another strand to the right to privacy properly called the right to confidentiality”).

353. Whalen, 429 U.S. at 600.

354. Id. at 600-02.

355. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty 13 (David Spitz, ed. 1975).

356. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, F raternity 161-62 (1967 ed.)

(1873).

357. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251-52 (1891).

358. Richards, “Information Privacy Project,” 1108.

359. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969).

360. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dis

senting), quoted in Stanely v. Georgia, 394 U.S. at 564.

361. Id. at 565.

362. Post, “Social Foundations of Privacy,” 973.

363. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578, 567, 562 (2003).

364. Id. at 572 (quoting Model Penal Code §213.2 cmt. 2 (1980) and citing

Model Penal Code Commentary 277-78 (Tentative Draft No. 4, 1955)). For an in

teresting discussion of Lawrence and public versus private places, see Lior Jacob

Strahilevitz, “Consent, Aesthetics, and the Boundaries of Sexual Privacy After

Lawrence v. Texas,” 54 DePaul Law Review 671 (2005).

365. McLaren, Sexual Blackmail, 6, 8.

6. Privacy: A New Understanding

1. Quoted in Joanne B. Freeman, “Slander, Poison, Whispers, and Fame: Jef

ferson’s ‘Anas’ and Political Gossip in the Early Republic,” 15 Journal o f the Early

Republic 25, 31 (1995).

2. Rodney A. Smolla, Law o f D efam ation 9-14, 9-19, 9-17 (2d ed. 2000).

244

Notes to Pages 115-119

3. Eric H. Reiter, “Personality and Patrimony: Comparative Perspectives on

the Right to One’s Image,” 76 Tulane Law Review 673, 676-78 (2002).

4. Paul Sieghart, quoted in Colin J. Bennett, Regulating Privacy: D ata Protection

and Public Policy in Europe and the U nited States 28 (1992).

5. Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” 4 H arvard

Law Review 193, 193, 194, 197 (1890).

6. Id. at 196.

7. Nancy Levit, “Ethereal Torts,” 61 George Washington Law Review 136, 141

(1992); see also James M. Fischer, U nderstanding Remedies 124 (1999) (courts were

reluctant to award damages for emotional distress because of “concerns over gen

uineness, reliability, and the specter of unlimited liability for trivial losses”).

8. Smolla, Law o f Defamation, 11-41 to 11-43.

9. Restatement (Second) of Torts §46.

10. Levit, “Ethereal Torts,” 150.

11. See Glen Weissenberger, Federal Evidence §501 (4th ed. 2001); Upjohn Co. v.

United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981) (attorney-client); Jaffee v. Redmond, 518

U.S. 1 (1996) (psychotherapist-patient).

12. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957) (“Merely to summon

a witness and compel him, against his will, to disclose the nature of his past ex

pressions and associations is a measure of governmental interference in these

matters”); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 490 (1960) (striking down statute

requiring teachers to provide a list to the government of all the groups they

were members of); Baird v. State Bar, 401 U.S. 1, 6 (1971) (“[W]hen a State at

tempts to make inquiries about a person’s beliefs or associations, its power is

limited by the First Amendment. Broad and sweeping state inquiries into these

protected areas . .. discourage citizens from exercising rights protected by the

Constitution”).

13. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958).

14. Alexis de Tocqueville, 2 Democracy in Am erica 196 (Phillips Bradley ed. 1945).

15. For a comparison of privacy law and environmental law, see Dennis D.

Hirsch, “Protecting the Inner Environment: What Privacy Regulation Can Learn

from Environmental Law,” 41 Georgia Law Review 1 (2006).

16. Daniel J. Solove, The D igital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Inform ation

A ge 99 (2004).

17. See, e.g., Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 1, 13 (1972) (confronting the alleged

“chilling effect” that army surveillance had on “lawful and peaceful civilian politi

cal activity”).