Control, Privacy, & Technology

CPSC 185: Control, Privacy and Technology
Brad Rosen (brad.rosen@yale.edu)

Spring 2025

TAs: Ryan Sandler, Santiago Tobar-Potes
F, 3:30-5:30, WLH 204 (or Zoom as needed)
Course Readings:  Please Skim The Syllabi from 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017,2016,  2015, 2014, 2013, etc.

(1) Crazy Laws & Prosecutorial Discretion 

  1. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v Rockerfeller, 477 F2d 375 (2d Cir. 1973):http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/477/375/1514/
  2. Lon Fuller, The Case of The Speluncean Explorers
  3. Miller v. Skumanick,  Order  [Order] (Optional: Skim Complaint [Complaint])
  4. Miller v. Skumanick,  3rd Cir. Appeal Pages: 4-11, Skim 14-21, 22-35.
  5. United States v. Dougherty 473 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1974) condensed opinion
  6. United States v. Krzyske, 857 F.2d 1089 (6th Cir. 1988)   and United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1988)  (read sections on jury nullification)
  7. Tang, Xiyin: The Perverse Logic of Teen Sexting Prosecutions (And How To Stop It)

[N.B. The Fuller Article and the Inmates of Attica case serve as a framework for a number of the issues we will discuss in the class].

2) Search, Seizure, and “Reasonable Expectations” 

  1. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967):
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZO.html
    Harlan’s Concurrence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZC1.html
  2. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), including Brennan’s Dissent: 
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/35/case.html
  3. Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html
  4. Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/case.html
  5. Re-read:  California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986):  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/207/ (this is from 183)
  6. Time Magazine, Antonin Scalia, Civil Libertarian: 
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,130509,00.html
  7. U.S. v. Camacho, 368 F3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2004): http://openjurist.org/368/f3d/1182/united-states-v-camacho
  8. Forbes, Scanner Vans Allow Drive By Snooping, http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/technology-x-rays-homeland-security-aclu-drive-by-snooping.html
  9. Andy Greenberg, Full-Body Scan Technology Deployed in Street-Roving Vans,http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
  10. Raw Story, Naked-image full-body scanners to be taken out of U.S. airports, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/18/naked-image-full-body-scanners-to-be-taken-out-of-u-s-airports/
  11. Washington Post, How My Shirt Flummoxed the TSA,  http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/how-my-shirt-flummoxed-the-tsa/2011/09/19/gIQA2PZwqK_story.html
  12. Gonzalez v Schenectady, 2d Cir (Slip. Op. 2013)

3) Search and Seizure, 2.0 

  1. U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (Read the Case Syllabus Only): http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/276/case.html (Optional Skim Case)

Use of GPS / Phones

  1. U.S. v. Garcia, 474 F3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007): http://openjurist.org/474/f3d/994/united-states-v-garcia
  2. People v. Weaver, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 03762: [pdf] (read pp. 1-28 and fn 1 on p. 29 — n.b. page numbers are of the pdf, as each opinion has its own page numbers)
  3. Delaware v. Holden [PDF] (read pp. 1-7, 9-17)
  4. U.S. v. Pineda Moreno, 9th Cir. Opinion: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1497005.html AND Dissent from Denial of en banc:http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/12/08-30385.pdf
  5. U.S. v. Jones (2012) (read all opinions): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-1259.pdf
  6. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/third-circuit-agrees-eff-warrant-required-track-car-gps
  7. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/again-federal-court-finds-cops-dont-need-a-warrant-for-cellphone-location-data/
  8. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/bipartisanship-supreme-court/547124/
  9. Carpenter v. US (2018),  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf (read/skim as you deem appropriate/interesting)
  10. Maryland v. Andrews, http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2016/1496s15.pdf(skim)
  11. Optional: Application for Historical Cell Site Data [PDF] (read pp. 1-4, 15 – 35, skim pp. 5-14 [Conclusions of Fact])
  12. Optional:  Read Case Syllabus Only from U.S. v. Karo, 486 U.S. 705 (1984), http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/705/case.html

Perp walks

  1. A brief history of perp walks: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/05/a_brief_history_of_perp_walks.html
  2. Lauro v. Charles, 219 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2000): https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/219/219.F3d.202.99-7239.1999.html
  3. Caldarola 343 F.3d 570 (2d Cir. 2003): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1371024.html
  4. Mugged by a Mug Shot Online

(4) Right Against Self Incrimination 

  1. U.S. v. Cohen, 388 F2d 464 (9th Cir. 1967): http://openjurist.org/388/f2d/464/united-states-v-cohen
  2. U.S. v. Boucher, 2007 WL 4246473 (D. Vt. Nov. 29 2007): read the Magistrate Order first, then the Appeal
  3. Bronston v. U.S., 409 U.S. 352 (1973): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=409&invol=352
  4. Brogan v. U.S., 522 U.S. 398 (1998): (note that the Souter and Stevens opinions are extremely short)
    1. Scalia’s Opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZO.html
    2. Souter’s Concurrence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC.html
    3. Ginsburg’s Concurrence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html
    4. Stevens’s Dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZD.html
  5. FedSoc:   https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/scotus-asked-if-5th-amendment-bars-compelling-defendants-to-unlock-electronic-devices  (and no, They Didn’t Resolve It: https://newjerseyglobe.com/fr/new-jersey-supreme-court-wont-take-up-forced-password-disclosure-appeal/)
  6. Ars Technica on Payne
  7. FROM HERE DOWN: You can skim more than read unless otherwise noted.
  8. Andrew J. Ungberg,  Protecting Privacy Through a Responsible Decryption Policy: SKIM [PDF]  [This is now VERY long in the tooth — I want you to see how much things have changed.]
  9. Techdirt:  Massachusetts Ignores 5th Amendment; Says Defendant Can Be Forced To Decrypt His Computer
  10. Techdirt: Another Court Says Compelled Disclosure Doesn’t Violate 5th
  11. EFF’s Know Your Rights: https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
  12. Apple’s Fingerprint ID May Mean You Can’t ‘Take the Fifth’  http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/the-unexpected-result-of-fingerprint-authentication-that-you-cant-take-the-fifth/
  13. Forcing Suspects to Reveal Phone Passwords Is Unconstitutional – http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/forcing-suspects-to-reveal-phone-passwords-is-unconstitutional-court-says/  (also skim the linked court opinion in SEC v. Huang)
  14. Fifth Amendment Limits on Forced Decryption
  15. Compelled Decryption and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination [READ MORE THAN SKIM]
  16. Minnesota Court on the Fifth Amendment (skim linked TouchID post)
  17. Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) (Sub-Optional – We were going to have you read this, but we decided it was way too boring.  Here’s the link in case you’re interested, but we won’t even call it “optional.”): http://openjurist.org/378/us/52/murphy-v-waterfront-commission-of-new-york-harbor

5) Laptops, Documents & TXT MSGS (oh mai!) 

  1. U.S. v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-166.ZO.html
  2. Thomas’s Concurrence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-166.ZC.html
  3. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 US 321 (1987):  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html

Search by government employer (will be more on private employers next week)

  1. Ontario v. Quon, US Supreme Court (read Kennedy, skim what you like)
  2. Optional/Skim: Quon v. Arch Wireless, 529 F.3d. 892 (9th Cir. 2008)  Ninth Circuit: Opinion; Ikuta’s Dissent; Wardlaw’s Concurrence

Searches at the border

  1. U.S. v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008): district court opinion; Ninth Circuit opinion
  2. US v. Jae Shik Kim:  district court opinion
  3. ITS MINDREADING (Sultanov EDNY 2024)
  4. United States v. Cotterman: Ninth circuit en banc
  5. Techdirt, Think Tank Says DHS Should Stop Border Laptop Searches (also skim full report here)
  6. Kashmir Hill, The Price to Cross the Border
  7. https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-eff-sue-over-warrantless-phone-and-laptop-searches-us-border
  8. http://www.zdnet.com/article/warrantless-phone-laptop-searches-at-the-us-border-hit-record-levels/
  9. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-customs-agents-are-searching-more-cellphones–including-those-belonging-to-americans/2018/01/05/0a236202-f247-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html
  10. Alasaad (1st Cir) (skim) [summary here] [dct opinion here Alasaad}
  11. BUT SEE: US v. Cano.  (And check the En Banc Dissental)
  12. Also see: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/11/eff-second-circuit-electronic-device-searches-border-require-warrant

Cell phone searches

  1. Ars, Police Seizure of Text Messages Violated 4th Amendment
  2. People v. Diaz, California Supreme Court
  3. State v. Smith, Ohio Supreme Court
  4. United States v. Garvey, US Virgin Islands
  5. United States v. Flores-Lopez, 7th Cir
  6. Riley v. California Sup Ct.
  7. Where Police Can & Can’t Snoop Through Your Phone

) Emails, Passwords and Consent

  1. UNITED STATES v. GALPIN
  2. Kashmir Hill, The Geek Squad Becomes the Porn Squad
  3. Thompson v. Ross, W.D. Pa.
  4. U.S. v. Warshak, (6th Cir. 2010), Slip Opinon, (skim 4-13, read p14-29, p. 94-98)
  5. Romano v. Steelcase [PDF]
  6. Jennings v. Holly , SC Supreme Court
  7. Forman v. Henkin, NYCA
  8. ABC News, Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Snooping Through Wife’s Emails (Update: CBS Detroit, Final Charges Dropped in Husband-Wife Hacking Case)
  9. Kashmir Hill, Aussie Teen Proves a Lover’s Revenge Is Best Served Digitally
  10. People v. Barber:  http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_50193.htm)
  11. Reddit Bans Nude Photos Posted Without Consent

Email in the workplace

  1. Your Employer May Be Spying On You
  2. Stengart v. Loving Care, 990 A.2d 650 (2010), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1522648.html
  3. Most Asked Questions (skim)
  4. A Company Computer and Questions About E-Mail Privacy (N.Y. Times, June 27, 2008): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/technology/27mail.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=business&adxnnlx=1214862365-v6tJmItYLdKLKVEcpU7/bQ
  5. Rebels in Black Robes Recoil at Surveillance of Computers (N.Y. Times, Aug. 8, 2001):http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/national/08COUR.html?
  6. Smyth v. Pillsbury Co., 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996): http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Smyth_v_Pillsbury.html (Skim)
  7. United States v. Hamilton (4th Circuit 2012)
  8. California Judge Confirms Police Officers’ Rights Were Violated By Hidden Locker Room Camera (ACLU.org, Apr. 4, 2006): http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/california-judge-confirms-police-officers-rights-were-violated-hidden-locker-
  9. Venkat Balasubramani, Ex-Employees Awarded $4,000 for Email Snooping by Employer

7) Recordings 

Recording police officers

  1. ACLU v. Alvarez
  2. [ED: Vertias v Schmidt https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/01/07/22-35271.pdf]
  3. Sharp v. Baltimore
  4. Justice Dept. defends public’s constitutional ‘right to record’ cops 
  5. DOJ letter
  6. Cops Roll Out Citizen Video Order
  7. Yes, You Have A Right to Record The Police
  8. The Danger In Recording A Cop
  9. What To Say When The Police Tell You To Stop Filming Them
  10. Police Must Respect Citizen’s Right To Record Them
  11. Federal Judge: Recording Cops Isn’t Necessarily Protected By 1st Amendment
  12. Fields v. Philadelphia (read it now before it gets overturned)
  13. Fields v. Philadelphia (3rd Circuit… overturned   )
  14. A Major Victory For the Right to Record Police
  15. Shot  ….. and Chaser   (and the Op Ed that wasnt written fast enough)
  16. Verkada  (Watch this video)
  17. Martin & Pérez v. Gross (skim)

Secretly recording sex

  1. NY v. Piznarski  (Read up to page 12, skim the rest)
  2. Desfeux granted special probation 

Other recording

  1. Animal Legal v Wasden
  2. Caro v. Weintraub 
  3. Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters 
  4. ABC wins appeal over hidden camera investigation of medical lab (Optional: opinion)
  5. What you need to know when recording your enemies
  6. This Call May Be Recorded For Quality Assurance Purposes (spend 10 minutes researching “Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney — review whatever resources you deem readable and send me the links along with your reading response).

8)  If you’re not paying for it…(and then what do they do with it?)

  1. (skim) WSJ Privacy Coverage: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight
  2. Apple and Google’s Fight Isn’t Actually About Privacy or Tracking
  3. Impact of Apple’s iOS Changes on Meta
  4. Google Brings Privacy Washing To Android

A. Social Media and employment (NOTE HOW OLD THESE READINGS ARE)

  1. Keeping a Closer Eye on Employees’ Social Networking (NYTimes.com, Mar. 26, 2010):http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/keeping-a-closer-eye-on-workers-social-networking/?scp=1&sq=facebook%20employers&st=cse.
  2. The Atlantic, Should Employers Be Allowed to Ask For Your Facebook Password?
  3. State Laws On This

B. Social media, police, passwords, and courts

  1. Reuters, In US Courts, Facebook Posts Become Less Private
  2. Ehling-v.-Monmouth-Ocean-Hospital-SCA [repeat from 183]
  3. Forbes, Judge Orders Divorcing Couple to Swap Facebook Passwords
  4. When Tweets Can Make You a Jailbird
  5. Criminal Selfies: One,  Two, Three
  6. The Federal Crime Nobody Talks About In Making A Murderer

C. Data Privacy and Marketing (Focus more on the later ones)

  1. Facebook is Marketing Your Brand Preferences (With Your Permission) (N.Y. Times, Nov. 7, 2007):http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/technology/07adco.html
  2. Facebook to Shut Down Ad Program
  3. Facebook Test-Drives Real Time Ad Targeting, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382544,00.asp
  4. Kash Hill, How Target Figured Out a Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/
  5. But See “That One Article Was Silly and Bad“
  6. Kash Hill, When An App Tells Companies You’re Pregnant But Not That You’ve Miscarried, http://fusion.net/story/345471/what-to-expect-app-privacy-problems/
  7. The Internet Still Thinks I’m Pregnant
  8. Pregnancy Apps Don’t Know How To Handle Miscarriageshttps://mashable.com/article/miscarriage-stillbirth-pregnancy-apps/
  9. Open Letter re: Same
  10. Kash Hill, Facebook and your friends.  One.  Two.
  11. Vibrator Spies On You.
  12. Amazon Wants to Ship Your Package Before You Buy It
  13. Time, Private Eyes – Retailers watching our every move, http://business.time.com/2012/09/18/private-eyes-are-retailers-watching-our-every-move/
  14. Facebook and Google Surveillance is an ‘assault on privacy’
  15. No Escape From Facebook
  16. You are the target of a secret extraction operation
  17. The battle for digital privacy

9) Data Aggregation, Brokers, and Breaches

A. Aggregation Effect

  1. How Privacy Vanishes Online (N.Y. Times, Mar. 17, 2010):http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/technology/17privacy.html
  2. Cookies, Web Bugs, and In re Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (from Information Privacy Law 808-10 (Daniel J. Solove & Paul M. Schwartz eds., 2009)) (read the entire attached PDF)
  3. Apple Sets May 1 Deadline to Cut off UDID
  4. Fingerprinting and Beyond
  5. Law Students Teach Scalia About Privacy and the Web (N.Y. Times, May 18, 2009): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/technology/internet/18link.html
  6. A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749 (N.Y. Times, Aug. 9, 2006):http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?pagewanted=1
  7. Facebook Graph – Privacy Control You Still Don’t Have https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/facebook-graph-search-privacy-control-you-still-dont-have
  8. Facebook Users Want More Privacy, Nudged Towards Less, Study Finds (Also finds Water, Wet. Pope, Catholic)
  9. Study Calls Out Dark Patterns
  10. Explore: http://actualfacebookgraphsearches.tumblr.com/
  11. Teens, Social Media, and Privacy http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/
  12. “Critics of Privacy.” Solove and Schwartz, Information Privacy Law (4th), pp. 62-69. (excerpt)

B. Data Brokers

  1. The Data Brokers: Selling your personal information
  2. Joshua L. Simmons, Buying You – The Government’s Use of Fourth-Parties to Launder Data About “The People”: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1475524
  3. Escaping the Scrapers, WSJ, http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/11/escaping-the-scrapers/
  4. Lawsuits Challenge US Online Data Brokers (Reuters Legal, Feb. 24, 2011):http://www.reu dters.com/assets/print?aid=USN2427826420110224
  5. Spokeo and Privacy Harms
  6. Data Broker Defendants Settle…. (Skim Complaint)
  7. Spokeo Settlement Analysis
  8. The End of the Data Broker Model
  9. Data Brokers Are A Threat To Democracy
  10. FLoC Block
  11. Topics Api (Stop trying to make FLoC Happen)
  12. Also….not that either.
  13. House Bill

C. Data Breaches

  1. Private Information Stolen from Nationwide Consumer Database (ConsumerAffairs.com, Feb. 16, 2005): Achived
  2. ChoicePoint Details Data Breach Lessons
  3. ChoicePoint-FBI Deal Raises New Privacy Questions
  4. The Target Data Breach is Becoming a Nightmare
  5. Post Spokeo Standing
  6. Standing Issues In Data Breach Litigation
  7. XY Magazine Bankruptcy (NOT A BREACH) and see: 23 and Me Bankruptcy (NOT A BREACH)
  8. Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan Dissenting….

(10) Theories of Privacy Rights: Penumbras and Unintended Consequences :

  1. Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 5 (1890). (attached as PDF)
  2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965): Douglas’s opinion for the Court:http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html; Black’s dissent (first three paragraphs only): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479#writing-USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZD
  3. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (Blackmun’s opinion – only preamble (the paragraphs preceding section I) and section VIII):http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
  4. Dobbs v. Jackson — skim for references to “privacy”
  5. Carpenter Should Replace Katz (Lawfare)
  6. Cybersurveillance Intrusions and an Evolving Katz Privacy Test (Hu)
  7. Preserving Identities: Protecting Personal Identifying Information through Enhanced Privacy Policies and Laws (Sprague/Ciocchetti)
  8. Randall P. Bezanson, The Right to Privacy Revisited: Privacy, News, and Social Change 1890-1990, 80 Cal. L. Rev. 5 (1992) [only pages 1137-1150] (attached as PDF)
  9. Robert C. Post, The Social Foundations of Privacy: Community and Self in the Common Law Tort, 77 Cal. L. Rev. 5 (1989) [only pages 969-978] (attached as PDF)
  10. Catsouras v. Dept. of Cal. Hwy. Patrol, 181 Cal. App. 4th 856 (2010) [only pages 10-18] (attached as PDF)
  11. ABCNews, Families Struggle to Delete Loved One’s Online Presence After Death, http://abcnews.go.com/US/families-struggle-delete-loved-online-presence-death/story?id=15108300#.T4yn4qtQ4iE
  12. Justia, Facebook’s “If I Die” App Should Remind Us That We Each Need a Digital Death Plan, http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/17/facebooks-if-i-die-app-should-remind-us-that-we-each-need-a-digital-death-plan
  13. Facebook Now Lets You Choose Who Controls Your Account After You Die, http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/12/8025117/facebook-account-after-death
  14. ….but people aren’t using it:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/04/21/digital-asset-legacy-poll/
  15. Generative AI to Resurrect The Dead Will Create a Burden for the Living https://www.wired.com/story/using-generative-ai-to-resurrect-the-dead-will-create-a-burden-for-the-living/
  16. Lifehacker, What Should I Do About My Virtual Life After Death, http://lifehacker.com/5617683/what-should-i-do-about-my-virtual-life-after-death
  17. Google Inactive Account Manager, http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/11/googles-afterlife/
  18. What Inactive Account Manager means for your will, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9997105/Google-RIP-What-Inactive-Account-Manager-means-for-your-will.html
  19. National archives v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (Opinion by Kennedy):http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-954.ZO.html
  20. Marsh v. San Diego
  21. Chanko v. American Broadcasting Corp
  22. Rodriguez v Fox
  23. Kiel Brennan Marquez, “A modest defense of mind-reading” http://yjolt.org/modest-defense-mind-reading
  24. Refresh Lon Fuller, The Case of The Speluncean Explorers: TheCaseOfTheSpelunceanExplorers

Leave a comment