2016 Syllabus

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

TAs:  Emily Rosenberg (emily.rosenberg@yale.edu) & Theo Rostow (theodore.rostow@yale.edu)
F, 3:30-5:30, WLH 204

Course Readings:  Please Skim The Syllabi from 201520142013, etc.

(1) Crazy Laws & Prosecutorial Discretion (Jan. 29 – 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)   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” (Feb. 5)

  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 (Feb. 12)

  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. Optional: Application for Historical Cell Site Data [PDF] (read pp. 1-4, 15 – 35, skim pp. 5-14 [Conclusions of Fact])
  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

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. 26)

  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. 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