Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project
Privacy Notes Dont be a FOOL; The Law is Not DIY
- Privacy
- Fair Info Practices
- 4th Amendment
- - ECPA
- - FISA
- - Patriot Act
- - Expectation
- - Cybersecurity
- - ID Theft
- - Spyware
- - Children's Privacy
- - Cookies
- - Social Networks
- - Advertising
- - Online Profiling
- - Privacy Policies
- - Enforcement
- - CPNI
- - Cable
Dept of Commerce
- - NTIA
- - NIST
- - EU Safe Harbors
- The Feds
- - Pri.Protection Act
- - Privacy Act
- - Pri. Impact Statements
- - Info Law
- - The Press
- Notes
- Cloud
- Reference

Privacy Threats

Technology that will protection you from one threat vector may not protected you from another. An email service that offers encrypted email may protect you against surveillance by an authoritarian regimes, but not as against the corporation, or as against the divorce lawyer.

Privacy Protections

Information Collection Concerns

Looks a lot like FIPPS

From N Doty, D Mulligan. E Wilde, Privacy Issues of the W3C Geolocation API, UC Berkeley School of Information Reports 2010-038, February 2010

  • "Appropriateness: Is the collection of location information appropriate given the context of the service or application?
  • "Minimization: Is the minimum necessary granularity of location information distributed or collected?
  • "User Control: How much ongoing control does the user have over location information? Is the user a passive receiver of notices or an active transmitter of policies? Are there defaults? Do they privilege privacy or information ow?
  • "Notice: Can requesters transmit information about their identity and practices? What information is required to be provided to the user by the requesting entity? What rules can individuals establish, attach to their location information and transmit? Is there a standard language for such rules?
  • "Consent: Is the user in control of decisions to disclose location information? Is control provided on a per use, per recipient or some other basis? Is it operationalized as an opt-in, opt-out or opt model?
  • "Secondary Use: Is user consent required for secondary use (a use beyond the one for which the information was supplied by the user)? Do mechanisms facilitate setting of limits or asking permission for secondary uses?
  • "Distribution: Is distribution of location information limited to the entity with whom the individual believes they are interacting or is information re-transmitted to others?
  • "Retention: Are timestamps for limiting retention attached to location information? How can policy statements about retention be made?
  • "Transparency and Feedback: Are flows of information transparent to the individual? Does the specification facilitate individual access and related rights? Are there mechanisms to log location information requests and is it easy for individuals to access such logs
  • "Aggregation: Does the standard facilitate aggregation of location information on specific users or users generally? Does the specification create persistent unique identifiers?

Right to Privacy / Media


  • Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).
  • Landmark Comm., Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) “The article published by Landmark provided accurate factual information about a legislatively authorized inquiry pending before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, and in so doing clearly served those interests in public scrutiny and discussion of governmental affairs which the First Amendment was adopted to protect." p 839.
  • Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) (no cause of action where newspaper published name of rape victim)
  • New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1970) (no cause of action where newspaper published name of rape victim).
  • New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (defamation causes of action by public figures against news reporters must demonstrate that reporting was malicious or with reckless disregard to the truth).
  • Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
  • Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (1948) (striking down NY state law which prohibited publications “principally made up of criminal news, police reports, or accounts of criminal deeds of bloodshed, lust or crime.”)
  • Pavesich v. New Eng. Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68 (Ga. 1905) (public figures waive right to privacy)


  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Rediscovering Brandeis’s Right to Privacy, 45 BRANDEIS L. J. 643 (2007)
  • Jessica E. Jackson, Note: Sensationalism in the Newsroom: Its Yellow Beginnings, the Nineteenth Century Legal Transformation, and the Current Seizure of the American Press, 19 N.D. J. L. ETHICS & PUB. POL’Y 789 (2005)
  • Patrick J. McNulty, The Public Disclosure of Private Facts: There is Life After Florida Star, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 93, 98 (2001)
  • Rodney A. Smolla, Privacy and the First Amendment Right to Gather News, 67 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1097 (1999)
  • Randall P. Bezanson, The Right to Privacy Revisited: Privacy, News, and Social Change, 1890-1990, 80 CAL. L. REV. 1133 (1992)
  • Jonathan B. Mintz, The Remains of Privacy’s Disclosure Tort: An Exploration of the Private Domain, 55 MD. L. REV. 425 (1996)
  • John A. Jurata, Jr., Comment, The Tort That Refuses To Go Away: The Subtle Reemergence of the Public Disclosure of Private Facts Tort, 36 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 489 (1999)
  • Robert C. Post, The Social Foundations of Privacy: Community and Self in the Common Law Tort, 77 CAL. L. REV. 957 (1989).
  • Thomas I. Emerson, The Right of Privacy and Freedom of the Press, 14 HARV. CIV. RIGHTS CIV. LIB. L. REV. 329 (1979)
  • Linda N. Woito & Patrick McNulty, The Privacy Disclosure Tort and the First Amendment: Should the Community Decide Newsworthiness, 64 IOWA L. REV. 185 (1979)
  • William Prosser, Privacy, 48 CAL. L. REV. 383 (1960).
The Technology of Privacy: When Geeks Meet Wonks

Privacy Tools

Do Not Track

© Cybertelecom ::