2010 Syllabus

CPSC 185: Control, Privacy and Technology
Brad Rosen (brad.rosen@yale.edu)
F, 3:30-5:20, Bass L70


(1)  Crazy Laws & Prosecutorial Discretion (Jan. 22 – Intro & Overview)

  1. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v Rockerfeller, 477 F2d 375 (2d Cir. 1973): http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/549696
  2. Lon Fuller, The Case of The Speluncean Explorers: http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html
  3. Miller v. Skumanick, 3d Cir. – Order  [Order] (Optional: Skim Complaint [Complaint])
  4. Optional: Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. __ (2010): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/09A648.pdf

[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” (Jan. 29)

  1. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967): http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZO.html
    Harlan’s Concurrence: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZC1.html
  2. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZO.html
    Brennan’s Dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZD.html
  3. Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001): http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html
  4. Time Magazine, Antonin Scalia, Civil Libertarian: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,130509,00.html
  5. 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)
  6. U.S. v. Garcia, 474 F3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007): http://openjurist.org/474/f3d/994/united-states-v-garcia
  7. People v. Weaver, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 03762: http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/2009/may09/53opn09.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)
  8. U.S. v. Camacho, 368 F3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2004): http://openjurist.org/368/f3d/1182/united-states-v-camacho

(3) Right Against Self Incrimination (Feb. 5)

  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)
    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
  5. Andrew J. Ungberg,  Protecting Privacy Through a Responsible Decryption Policy: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v22/22HarvJLTech537.pdf
  6. 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.”):

(4) Laptops, and Documents, and Text Messages (oh my!) (Feb. 12)

  1. 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
  2. U.S. v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008): district court opinion; Ninth Circuit opinion
  3. Quon v. Arch Wireless, 529 F.3d. 892 (9th Cir. 2008)
    Ninth Circuit: Opinion; Ikuta’s Dissent; Wardlaw’s Concurrence
    Certiorari Documents: Petition for Certiorari; Brief in Opposition; Petitioner’s Reply to Opposition (Optional reading – skim); Amicus Brief of the League of CA Cities (Optional reading – skim)

(5) Skirting Around the Law’s Protection (Feb. 19)

  1. 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
  2. EPIC, Choicepoint Home (browse/skim): http://epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/
  3. EPIC, FTC Letter – Request for investigation into data broker products for compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act: http://epic.org/privacy/choicepoint/fcraltr12.16.04.html
  4. Private Information Stolen from Nationwide Consumer Database (ConsumerAffairs.com, Feb. 16, 2005): http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/choicepoint.html
  5. Data Blunders Cost ChoicePoint $15 Million (ConsumerAffairs.com, Jan. 16, 2006): http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/01/choicepoint_fine.html
  6. ChoicePoint-FBI Deal Raises New Privacy Questions (ConsumerAffairs.com, May 16, 2006): http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/05/fbi_choicepoint.html
  7. ChoicePoint to pay $275,000 in latest data breach (CNET.com, Oct. 20, 2009): http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10379722-245.html

(6) CLASS DEBATE (Feb. 26)

(7) Control: Can We, Practically and Legally & If So, Should We? (Mar. 26)

A. AT&T Wiretapping

  1. In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, No. 06-1791 (N.D.C.A. June 3, 2009) (Only Pages 2-6): http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/orderhepting6309_0.pdf
  2. Telecoms Win Dismissal of Wiretap Suits (N.Y. Times, June 3, 2009): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04nsa.html?scp=1&sq=AT&T%20NSA%20wiretapping&st=cse
  3. Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 9th Cir. Oral Arguments (Optional): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppRKfXiXBLM

B. Workplace Privacy

  1. Stengart v. Loving Care, 408 N.J. Super. 54, 973 A.2d 390 (2009): http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/appellate/a3506-08.opn.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
  5. CA Public Utilities Commission General Order 107-B: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/Graphics/567.pdf
  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. High Tech, Under the Skin (N.Y. Times, Feb. 2, 2006): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/fashion/thursdaystyles/02tags.html

(8) Technology/Privacy: Facebook / Social Net / Aggregation Effect (Apr. 2)

A. Intro to Information Gathering

  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. Summer viral campaigns are here; is anybody feeling pinpricked yet? (Hollywood Reporter, Apr. 30, 2008) (read the attached article)
  4. When Tweets Can Make You a Jailbird (N.Y. Times, Mar. 16, 2010): http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/16/us/politics/AP-US-Feds-on-Facebook.html?scp=6&sq=AOL%20search%20term%20and%20privacy&st=cse
  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

B. AOL Search Term Fiasco: You Are What You Search For

  1. 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
  2. AOL search data release reveals a great deal (USAToday.com, Aug. 17, 2006): http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-17-aol-data_x.htm

C. Facebook and a New Tomorrow

  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’s New-New Privacy Policy (redlined version, reflecting proposed changes as of March 26, 2010): http://www.box.net/shared/89ebnd71i9
  3. 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.  (OPTIONAL – For a 2009 study on the rate at which employers search for applicants’ profiles, see the following CareerBuilder.com report, published Aug. 19, 2009: http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=pr519&sd=8/19/2009&ed=12/31/2009&siteid=cbpr&sc_cmp1=cb_pr519_&cbRecursionCnt=2&cbsid=f430eced50a44966a0c38ab247728f26-323142413-RF-4)
  4. Who’s Stalking You on Facebook? (Gawker.com, May 13, 2008): http://gawker.com/390004/whos-stalking-you-on-facebook

D. You Are What You Buy

  1. Walmart & RFID Chips:
    Wal-Mart Cancels ‘Smart Shelf’ Trial (CNET.com, Jul. 9, 2003): http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017_3-1023934.html
    Another Day, Another RFID Trial (NYTimes.com, Oct. 1, 2007): http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/another-day-another-rfid-trial/
  2. In re Northwestern Airlines Privacy Litigation, 2004 WL 1278459 (D. Minn. June 6, 2004) (read the attached PDF)
  3. FTC Forces Sears, Kmart Out of the Spyware Business (ArsTechnica.com, Sept. 13, 2009): http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/ftc-forces-sears-kmart-out-of-the-spyware-business.ars

(9) Watchdogs and Watch(persons) (Apr. 9)

A. EPIC’s Complaint to FTC against Facebook

  1. EPIC Defends Privacy of Facebook Users: Files Complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (EPIC.org, Dec. 17, 2009): http://epic.org/2009/12/epic-defends-privacy-of-facebo.html
  2. Complaint (Only Skim): http://epic.org/privacy/inrefacebook/EPIC-FacebookComplaint.pdf

B. Google Buzz Class Action Lawsuit

  1. Harvard Law Student Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Google (The Crimson, Feb. 22, 2010): http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/2/22/google-hibnick-buzz-lawsuit/
  2. Hibnick Complaint (read only pages 3-8 of the attached PDF)
  3. EPIC Urges Federal Trade Commission to Investigate Google Buzz (EPIC.org, Feb. 16, 2010): http://epic.org/2010/02/epic-urges-federal-trade-commi.html
  4. EPIC Complaint (Only Skim): http://epic.org/privacy/ftc/googlebuzz/GoogleBuzz_Complaint.pdf
  5. Lawmakers Call for Google Buzz Investigation (AOLNews.com, Mar. 30, 2010): http://www.aolnews.com/tech/article/lawmakers-call-for-google-buzz-investigation/19420671

C. Governance Regimes

  1. Privacy Governance by Contract, by Self-Regulation, by Property, and by Statute (excerpts from Information Privacy Law 808-10 (Daniel J. Solove & Paul M. Schwartz eds., 2009)) (read the attached PDF)

(10) Hide and Speak: Privacy, Anonymity and Free Speech (Apr. 16)

A. Bloggers, Anonymity, & Free Speech

  1. Famed Anonymous Anti-Palin Blogger “Outed” by Lawmaker (HuffingtonPost.com, Mar. 28, 2009): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/famed-anonymous-anti-pali_b_180313.html
  2. News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments (NYTimes.com, Apr. 11, 2010): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/technology/12comments.html
  3. Free-for-All Can Have a High Cost (HuffingtonPost.com, Apr. 14, 2010): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/candy-spelling/free-for-all-can-have-a-h_b_536740.html

B. Courts on the Right to Anonymity

  1. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (only read pages 6-7 (section II only) and 14 (section VI only)) [PDF]
  2. Ottinger v. Doe, No. 08-03892 (N.Y. 2008): http://www.cyberslapp.org/documents/OttingerDoeRulingDenyingMotionQuash.pdf
  3. Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., No. C01-453Z (W.D. Wash. April 26, 2001) [PDF]

C. Attacking and Protecting Your Anonymity

  1. De-Anonymizing Social Network Users by Using Browser History to Determine Group Membership (Tech and Law blog, Feb. 2, 2010): http://blog.tech-and-law.com/2010/02/de-anonymizing-social-network-users-by.html
    For your information (not necessary to read): Gilbert Wondracek et al., A Practical Attack to De-Anonymize Social Network Users: http://www.iseclab.org/papers/sonda-TR.pdf
  2. Browser Fingerprints: A Big Privacy Threat (NetworkWorld.com, Mar. 27, 2010): http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032710-browser-fingerprints-a-big-privacy.html
  3. For your information (to check out): https://panopticlick.eff.org/
  4. Tor – Overview (no need to re-read if you were in CPSC 183): http://www.torproject.org/overview.html.en

D. Moot and 4Chan

  1. A Virtual Unknown (WashingtonPost.com, Feb. 17, 2009): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601565.html
  2. Freedom in the Time of 4Chan (Cyberlens, July 29, 2009): http://cyberlens.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/freedom-in-the-time-of-4chan/
  3. Did Verizon Overreact by Blocking 4Chan? Depends on Whom You Ask (WashingtonPost.com, Feb. 9, 2010): http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/02/was_4chanorg_blocked_on_verizo.html
  4. 4Chan’s Moot Takes Pro-Anonymity to TED 2010 (Arstechnica.com, Feb. 11, 2010): http://arstechnica.com/staff/palatine/2010/02/4chans-moot-takes-pro-anonymity-to-ted-2010.ars

(11) Theories of Privacy Rights: Penumbras and Unintended Consequences (Apr. 23):

  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://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZD.html
  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. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. Catsouras v. Dept. of Cal. Hwy. Patrol, 181 Cal. App. 4th 856 (2010) [only pages 10-18] (attached as PDF)
  7. National archives v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (Opinion by Kennedy): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-954.ZO.html
  8. Refresh Lon Fuller, The Case of The Speluncean Explorers: http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html

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