Control, Privacy, & Technology

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

Spring 2019

TAs:  Ali Cooper-Ponte, TBD
F, 3:30-5:30, WLH 203

Course Readings:  Please Skim The Syllabi from 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: http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html
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://www.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): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/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. FROM HERE DOWN: You can skim more than read unless otherwise noted.
6. 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.]
7. Techdirt:  Massachusetts Ignores 5th Amendment; Says Defendant Can Be Forced To Decrypt His Computer
8. Techdirt: Another Court Says Compelled Disclosure Doesn’t Violate 5th
9. EFF’s Know Your Rights: https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
10. 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/
11. 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)
12. Fifth Amendment Limits on Forced Decryption
13. Compelled Decryption and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination [READ MORE THAN SKIM]
14. Minnesota Court on the Fifth Amendment (skim linked TouchID post)
15. 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
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. United States v. Cotterman: Ninth circuit en banc
4. Techdirt, Think Tank Says DHS Should Stop Border Laptop Searches (also skim full report here)
5. Kashmir Hill, The Price to Cross the Border
6. https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-eff-sue-over-warrantless-phone-and-laptop-searches-us-border
7. http://www.zdnet.com/article/warrantless-phone-laptop-searches-at-the-us-border-hit-record-levels/
8. 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

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

(6) 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. Judge dismisses case against Brooklyn man who shared nude photos of girlfriend on his Twitter account (full opinion: 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. Stengart v. Loving Care, 990 A.2d 650 (2010), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1522648.html
2. 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
3. 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?
4. Smyth v. Pillsbury Co., 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996): http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Smyth_v_Pillsbury.html (Skim)
5. United States v. Hamilton (4th Circuit 2012)
6. 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-
7. Venkat Balasubramani, Ex-Employees Awarded $4,000 for Email Snooping by Employer