2011 Syllabus

CPSC 185: Control, Privacy and Technology
Brad Rosen (brad.rosen@yale.edu)
F, 3:30-5:20, WLH204

(1)  Crazy Laws & Prosecutorial Discretion (Jan. 21 – Intro & Overview)

  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) http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/857/857.F2d.1089.85-1799.85-1760.html

[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. 28)

  1. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967):
    Harlan’s Concurrence:
  2. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZC1.html
  3. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988):
    Brennan’s Dissent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZD.html
  4. Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001): http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html
  5. Time Magazine, Antonin Scalia, Civil Libertarian:
  6. U.S. v. Camacho, 368 F3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2004): http://openjurist.org/368/f3d/1182/united-states-v-camacho
  7. Forbes, Scanner Vans Allow Drive By Snooping, http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/technology-x-rays-homeland-security-aclu-drive-by-snooping.html
  8. 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/
  9. Opening Brief For Petitioners, EPIC v. Napolitano, http://epic.org/EPIC_Body_Scanner_OB.pdf (pp. 1-19, 31-33)
  10. Complaint, Ventura v. Napolitano, http://static.infowars.com/2011/01/i/general/Ventura_lawsuit.pdf (skim)

(3) Search and Seizure, 2.0 (Feb. 4)

  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)
  2. U.S. v. Garcia, 474 F3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007): http://openjurist.org/474/f3d/994/united-states-v-garcia
  3. 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)
  4. Delaware v. Holden [PDF] (read pp. 1-7, 9-17)
  5. U.S. v. Pineda Moreno, 9th Cir. Opinion: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1497005.html Dissent from Denial of en banc: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/12/08-30385.pdf
  6. U.S. v. Maynard [PDF] (read pp. 1-5, 8-12, 16-38, skim pp. 6-7, 13-15, 39-41)
  7. Application for Historical Cell Site Data [PDF] (read pp. 1-4, 15 – 35, skim pp. 5-14 [Conclusions of Fact])
  8. Lily Robinton, Courting Chaos: Conflicting Guidance From Courts Highlights the Need for Clearer Rules to Govern the Search and Seizure of Digital Evidence [PDF]
  9. Optional:  Read Case Syllabus Only from U.S. v. Karo, 486 U.S. 705 (1984), http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/705/case.html

(4) Right Against Self Incrimination (Feb. 11)

  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: [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.”):

(5) Laptops, and Documents, and Text Messages (oh my!) (Feb. 18)

  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 opinionNinth Circuit opinion
  3. Ontario v. Quon, US Supreme Court
    Optional/Skim: Quon v. Arch Wireless, 529 F.3d. 892 (9th Cir. 2008)  Ninth Circuit: OpinionIkuta’s DissentWardlaw’s Concurrence
  4. People v. Diaz, California Supreme Court
  5. State v. Smith, Ohio Supreme Court
  6. Thompson v. Ross, W.D. Pa.
  7. United States v. Garvey, US Virgin Islands
  8. Kashmir Hill, Aussie Teen Proves a Lover’s Revenge Is Best Served Digitally
  9. Kashmir Hill, The Geek Squad Becomes the Porn Squad

(6) Emails, Passwords and Consent  (Feb. 18)

  1. U.S. v. Warshak, (6th Cir. 2010), Slip Opinon, (skim 4-13, read p14-29, p. 94-98)
  2. In Re Application of the United States of America for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2703(d) — EFF Amicus Brief
  3. Cnet, DOJ Abandons Warrantless Attempt to Read Yahoo Email
  4. Aol News, Snooping on Wife’s Email Could Put  Man In Prison
  5. Venkat Balasubramani, Ex-Employees Awarded $4,000 for Email Snooping by Employer
  6. The Atlantic, Should Employers Be Allowed to Ask For Your Facebook Password?
  7. Reuters, In US Courts, Facebook Posts Become Less Private

(7) Skirting Around the Law’s Protection (Mar. 4)

  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
  8. Lawsuits Challenge US Online Data Brokers (Reuters Legal, Feb. 24, 2011): http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USN2427826420110224
  9. Escaping the Scrapers, WSJ, http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/11/escaping-the-scrapers/
  10. Purcell v. Spokeo, Complaint  [PDF] (pp. 1-5)

(8) Control: Can We, Practically and Legally & If So, Should We? (Mar. 25)

A. Wiretapping

  1. Ars Technica, FBI pushes for surveillance backdoors in web 2.0 tools, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/fbi-pushes-for-surveillance-backdoors-in-web-20-tools.ars
  2. Going Dark: Lawful Electronic Surveillance  In the Face of New Technology, Valerie Caproni, General Counsel FBI, http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Caproni02172011.pdf
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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, 990 A.2d 650 (2010), http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-16-09.opn.html (Supreme Court)
    408 N.J. Super. 54, 973 A.2d 390 (2009): http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions/appellate/a3506-08.opn.html (Appellate Division – SKIM)
  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. CA Public Utilities Commission General Order 107-B: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/Graphics/567.pdf (skim)
  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


(9) Technology/Privacy: Facebook / Social Net / Aggregation Effect (Apr. 1)

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.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202446309011&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
  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. CDT Memo on Sorrell v. IMShttp://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/20110324_SorrellvIMS.pdf

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 Test-Drives Real Time Ad Targeting, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382544,00.asp
  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
  2. Wal-Mart Radio Tags Track Clothing, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421304575383213061198090.html
  3. Another Day, Another RFID Trial (NYTimes.com, Oct. 1, 2007):http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/another-day-another-rfid-trial/
  4. In re Northwestern Airlines Privacy Litigation, 2004 WL 1278459 (D. Minn. June 6, 2004) (read the attached PDF)
  5. 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

(10) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur) (Apr. 8 )

A. EPIC / 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
  3. Written Congressional Testimony of Marc Rotenberg, July 28, 2010, http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/EPIC_Testimony_House_Jud_7_10.pdf

B. EPIC / FTC / Google Buzz

  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. FTC Google Buzz Complaint http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023136/110330googlebuzzcmpt.pdf (Exhibits are here:  http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023136/110330googlebuzzexhibit.pdf
  6. Analysis of Proposed Consent Order, http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023136/110330googlebuzzanal.pdf (Optional — skim Consent Order, http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023136/110330googlebuzzagreeorder.pdf)
  7. FTC Charges Deceptive Privacy Practices in Google’s Rollout of Its Buzz Social Network http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/google.shtm

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)

(11) Guest Lecturer: Edith Ramirez, (Apr. 15)  [Please note: there may be additional readings added on 4/11 or 4/12]

  1. FTC Staff Issues Privacy Report, Dec. 1, 2010, http://ftc.gov/opa/2010/12/privacyreport.shtm
  2. Remarks of Chairman Leibowitz, http://ftc.gov/speeches/leibowitz/101201privacyreportremarks.pdf
  3. Protecting Consumer Privacy In An Era of Rapid Change, FTC Staff Report, Dec. 2010, http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/12/101201privacyreport.pdf
  4. Keynote Address of Commissioner Edith Ramirez, Advertising Law & Public Policy Conference, Mar. 15 2011, http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/ramirez/110315ana.pdf, (pp. 1-6)
  5. Keynote Address by Commissioner Edith Ramirez, 28th Annual Institute on Telecommunications Policy & Regulations, Dec. 9, 2010, http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/ramirez/101209fcbaspeech.pdf (pp. 2-5, 8-10)
  6. Prepared Statement of the FTC on Do Not Track, Dec. 2, 2010, http://ftc.gov/os/testimony/101202donottrack.pdf

(12) Theories of Privacy Rights: Penumbras and Unintended Consequences (Apr. 22):

  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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s