Control, Privacy, & Technology

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

TAs:  Alexandra Gutierrez (alexandra.gutierrez) & Gabriella Capone (gabriella.capone)
F, 3:30-5:30, WLH 204

Course Readings:  Please Skim The Syllabi from 201520142013, 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. Maryland v. Andrews, http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2016/1496s15.pdf (skim)
  9. Optional: Application for Historical Cell Site Data [PDF] (read pp. 1-4, 15 – 35, skim pp. 5-14 [Conclusions of Fact])
  10. 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 (Feb. 17)

  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. Andrew J. Ungberg,  Protecting Privacy Through a Responsible Decryption Policy: SKIM [PDF]
  6. Techdirt:  Massachusetts Ignores 5th Amendment; Says Defendant Can Be Forced To Decrypt His Computer
  7. EFF’s Know Your Rights: https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights
  8. 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/
  9. 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)
  10. Fifth Amendment Limits on Forced Decryption
  11. Minnesota Court on the Fifth Amendment (skim linked TouchID post)
  12. 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!) (Feb. 24)

  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: OpinionIkuta’s DissentWardlaw’s Concurrence

Searches at the border

  1. U.S. v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008): district court opinionNinth 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

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 (Mar. 3)

  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. Cnet, DOJ Abandons Warrantless Attempt to Read Yahoo Email
  8. Who Has Your Back 2015
  9. 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)
  10. Kashmir Hill, Aussie Teen Proves a Lover’s Revenge Is Best Served Digitally
  11. 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)
  12. 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

7) Recordings (Mar. 10)

Recording police officers

  1. ACLU v. Alvarez
  2. Sharp v. Baltimore
  3. Justice Dept. defends public’s constitutional ‘right to record’ cops 
  4. DOJ letter
  5. Cops Roll Out Citizen Video Order
  6. Yes, You Have A Right to Record The Police
  7. The Danger In Recording A Cop
  8. What To Say When The Police Tell You To Stop Filming Them
  9. Police Must Respect Citizen’s Right To Record Them
  10. Federal Judge: Recording Cops Isn’t Necessarily Protected By 1st Amendment
  11. Fields v. Philadelphia (read it now before it gets overturned)

Secretly recording sex

  1. NY v. Piznarski  (Read up to page 12, skim the rest)
  2. Charges target sex taping in dorm
  3. Desfeux granted special probation 

Other recording

  1. Caro v. Weintraub 
  2. Dillon v. Seattle Deposition Reporters 
  3. ABC wins appeal over hidden camera investigation of medical lab (Optional: opinion)
  4. Google “The Fappening” and “The Snappening” and read generally about both.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s