CPSC 185: Control, Privacy and Technology
Brad Rosen (brad.rosen@yale.edu)
Spring 2023
TAs: Nada & Julia
F, 3:30-5:30, WLH 204 (or Zoom as needed)
Course Readings: Please Skim The Syllabi from 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017,2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, etc.
(1) Crazy Laws & Prosecutorial Discretion
- 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/
- Lon Fuller, The Case of The Speluncean Explorers
- Miller v. Skumanick, Order [Order] (Optional: Skim Complaint [Complaint])
- Miller v. Skumanick, 3rd Cir. Appeal Pages: 4-11, Skim 14-21, 22-35.
- United States v. Dougherty 473 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1974) condensed opinion
- 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)
- 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”
- 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 - California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), including Brennan’s Dissent: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/35/case.html
- Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html
- Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/case.html
- Re-read: California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/207/ (this is from 183)
- Time Magazine, Antonin Scalia, Civil Libertarian: http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,130509,00.html
- U.S. v. Camacho, 368 F3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2004): http://openjurist.org/368/f3d/1182/united-states-v-camacho
- Forbes, Scanner Vans Allow Drive By Snooping, http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/technology-x-rays-homeland-security-aclu-drive-by-snooping.html
- 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/
- 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/
- 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
- Gonzalez v Schenectady, 2d Cir (Slip. Op. 2013)
3) Search and Seizure, 2.0
- 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
- U.S. v. Garcia, 474 F3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007): http://openjurist.org/474/f3d/994/united-states-v-garcia
- 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)
- Delaware v. Holden [PDF] (read pp. 1-7, 9-17)
- 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
- U.S. v. Jones (2012) (read all opinions): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/third-circuit-agrees-eff-warrant-required-track-car-gps
- http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/again-federal-court-finds-cops-dont-need-a-warrant-for-cellphone-location-data/
- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/bipartisanship-supreme-court/547124/
- Carpenter v. US (2018), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf (read/skim as you deem appropriate/interesting)
- Maryland v. Andrews, http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2016/1496s15.pdf(skim)
- Optional: Application for Historical Cell Site Data [PDF] (read pp. 1-4, 15 – 35, skim pp. 5-14 [Conclusions of Fact])
- 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
- A brief history of perp walks: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/05/a_brief_history_of_perp_walks.html
- 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
- Caldarola 343 F.3d 570 (2d Cir. 2003): http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1371024.html
- Mugged by a Mug Shot Online
(4) Right Against Self Incrimination
- U.S. v. Cohen, 388 F2d 464 (9th Cir. 1967): http://openjurist.org/388/f2d/464/united-states-v-cohen
- U.S. v. Boucher, 2007 WL 4246473 (D. Vt. Nov. 29 2007): read the Magistrate Order first, then the Appeal
- Bronston v. U.S., 409 U.S. 352 (1973): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=409&invol=352
- Brogan v. U.S., 522 U.S. 398 (1998): (note that the Souter and Stevens opinions are extremely short)
- Scalia’s Opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZO.html
- Souter’s Concurrence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC.html
- Ginsburg’s Concurrence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html
- Stevens’s Dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZD.html
- 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/)
- FROM HERE DOWN: You can skim more than read unless otherwise noted.
- 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.]
- Techdirt: Massachusetts Ignores 5th Amendment; Says Defendant Can Be Forced To Decrypt His Computer
- Techdirt: Another Court Says Compelled Disclosure Doesn’t Violate 5th
- EFF’s Know Your Rights: https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
- 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/
- 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)
- Fifth Amendment Limits on Forced Decryption
- Compelled Decryption and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination [READ MORE THAN SKIM]
- Minnesota Court on the Fifth Amendment (skim linked TouchID post)
- 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!)
- U.S. v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-166.ZO.html
- Thomas’s Concurrence: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-166.ZC.html
- 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)
- Ontario v. Quon, US Supreme Court (read Kennedy, skim what you like)
- 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
- U.S. v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008): district court opinion; Ninth Circuit opinion
- US v. Jae Shik Kim: district court opinion
- United States v. Cotterman: Ninth circuit en banc
- Techdirt, Think Tank Says DHS Should Stop Border Laptop Searches (also skim full report here)
- Kashmir Hill, The Price to Cross the Border
- https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-eff-sue-over-warrantless-phone-and-laptop-searches-us-border
- http://www.zdnet.com/article/warrantless-phone-laptop-searches-at-the-us-border-hit-record-levels/
- 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
- Alasaad (1st Cir) (skim) [summary here] [dct opinion here Alasaad}
- BUT SEE: US v. Cano. (And check the En Banc Dissental)
Cell phone searches
- Ars, Police Seizure of Text Messages Violated 4th Amendment
- People v. Diaz, California Supreme Court
- State v. Smith, Ohio Supreme Court
- United States v. Garvey, US Virgin Islands
- United States v. Flores-Lopez, 7th Cir
- Riley v. California Sup Ct.
- Where Police Can & Can’t Snoop Through Your Phone
6) Emails, Passwords and Consent
- UNITED STATES v. GALPIN
- Kashmir Hill, The Geek Squad Becomes the Porn Squad
- Thompson v. Ross, W.D. Pa.
- U.S. v. Warshak, (6th Cir. 2010), Slip Opinon, (skim 4-13, read p14-29, p. 94-98)
- Romano v. Steelcase [PDF]
- Jennings v. Holly , SC Supreme Court
- Forman v. Henkin, NYCA
- 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)
- Kashmir Hill, Aussie Teen Proves a Lover’s Revenge Is Best Served Digitally
- People v. Barber: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_50193.htm)
- Reddit Bans Nude Photos Posted Without Consent
Email in the workplace
- Stengart v. Loving Care, 990 A.2d 650 (2010), http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1522648.html
- Most Asked Questions (skim)
- 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
- 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?
- Smyth v. Pillsbury Co., 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996): http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Smyth_v_Pillsbury.html (Skim)
- United States v. Hamilton (4th Circuit 2012)
- 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-
- Venkat Balasubramani, Ex-Employees Awarded $4,000 for Email Snooping by Employer
7) Recordings
Recording police officers
- ACLU v. Alvarez
- Sharp v. Baltimore
- Justice Dept. defends public’s constitutional ‘right to record’ cops
- DOJ letter
- Cops Roll Out Citizen Video Order
- Yes, You Have A Right to Record The Police
- The Danger In Recording A Cop
- What To Say When The Police Tell You To Stop Filming Them
- Police Must Respect Citizen’s Right To Record Them
- Federal Judge: Recording Cops Isn’t Necessarily Protected By 1st Amendment
- Fields v. Philadelphia (read it now before it gets overturned)
- Fields v. Philadelphia (3rd Circuit… overturned
)
- A Major Victory For the Right to Record Police
- Shot ….. and Chaser (and the Op Ed that wasnt written fast enough)
- Verkada (Watch this video)
- Martin & Pérez v. Gross (skim)
Secretly recording sex
- NY v. Piznarski (Read up to page 12, skim the rest)
- Charges target sex taping in dorm
- Desfeux granted special probation
Other recording
- Caro v. Weintraub
- Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters
- ABC wins appeal over hidden camera investigation of medical lab (Optional: opinion)
- What you need to know when recording your enemies
- 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).