Law Commons^™

The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution, Orin S. Kerr

Orin Kerr

To one who values federalism, federal preemption of state law may significantly threaten the autonomy and core regulatory authority of The Supreme Court recently considered whether a1mmg an infrared thermal imaging device at a suspect's home can violate the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo v. United States announced a new and comprehensive rule: the government's warrantless use of senseenhancing technology that is "not in general use" violates the Fourth Amendment when it yields "details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." Justice Scalia's majority opinion acknowledged that the Court's rule was not needed to resolve the case …

Playing With Real Property Inside Augmented Reality: Pokemon Go, Trespass, And Law's Limitations, Donald J. Kochan

Donald J. Kochan

Ispy: Threats To Individual And Institutional Privacy In The Digital World, Lori Andrews

Lori B. Andrews

Private Technology (Foreword), Daniel Harris Brean

Daniel Harris Brean

Digital Peepholes | Remote Activation Of Webcams: Technology, Law And Policy, Lori Andrews

Lori B. Andrews

Do Androids Dream Of Electric Free Speech? Visions Of The Future Of Copyright, Privacy And The First Amendment In Science Fiction, Daxton R. Stewart

Daxton "Chip" Stewart

Science fiction authors have long projected the future of technology, including communication devices and the way in which future societies may use them. In this essay, these visions of future technology, and their implications on the future of media law and policy, are explored in three areas in particular – copyright, privacy, and the First Amendment. Themes examined include moving toward massively open copyright systems, problems of perpetual surveillance by the state, addressing rights of obscurity in public places threatened by wearable and implantable computing devices, and considering free speech rights of autonomous machines created by humans. In conclusion, the …

Katz On A Hot Tin Roof: The Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Is Rudderless In The Digital Age Unless Congress Continually Resets The Privacy Bar, Charles E. Maclean

Charles E. MacLean

The Katz reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine has lasting relevance in the digital age, but that relevance must be carefully and clearly guided in great detail by Congressional and state legislative enactments continually resetting the privacy bar as technology advances. In that way, the Katz “reasonableness” requirements are actually set by the legislative branch, thereby precluding courts from applying inapposite analogies to phone booths, cigarette packs, and business records. Once legislation provides the new contours of digital privacy, those legislative contours become the new “reasonable.”

This article calls upon Congress, and to a lesser extent, state legislatures, to control that …

Learning From All Fifty States: How To Apply The Fourth Amendment And Its State Analogs To Protect Third Party Information From Unreasonable Search, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

We are all aware of, and many commentators are critical of, the Supreme Court's third-party doctrine, under which information provided to third parties receives no Fourth Amendment protection. This constitutional void becomes increasingly important as technology and social norms dictate that increasing amounts of disparate information are available to third parties. But we are not solely dependent upon the Federal Constitution. We may have more constitutional protection as citizens of states, each of which has a constitutional cognate or analog to the Federal Fourth Amendment. As Justice Brennan urged in a famous 1977 article, those provisions should be interpreted to …

Nothing New Under The Sun? A Technologically Rational Doctrine Of Fourth Amendment Search, Stephen E. Henderson

Stephen E Henderson

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Yet as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Amendment places no restriction on police combing through financial records; telephone, e-mail and website transactional records; or garbage left for collection. Indeed there is no protection for any information knowingly provided to a third party, because the provider is said to retain no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. As technology dictates that more and more of our personal lives are available to anyone equipped to receive them, and as social norms dictate that more and …