Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Privacy (5)
- Fourth Amendment (2)
- 4th amendment (1)
- Appropriation of name or likeness (1)
- Article i section 7 (1)
-
- Berger v. new york (1)
- Branding (1)
- Cloud (1)
- Cloud storage (1)
- Commoditizing personality rights (1)
- Common law privacy torts (1)
- Constitutional Rights (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Cyberspace (1)
- Data collection (1)
- East Asia (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Foreign law (1)
- Fourth amendment (1)
- Geofence warrants (1)
- Influencer law (1)
- Journalism (1)
- Keyword warrant (1)
- Keyword warrants (1)
- Monetizing personality rights (1)
- Personal branding (1)
- Personal rights (1)
- Personality rights (1)
- Personality rights infringement (1)
- Police searches (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Privacy Law
Who Owns Data? Constitutional Division In Cyberspace, Dongsheng Zang
Who Owns Data? Constitutional Division In Cyberspace, Dongsheng Zang
Articles
Privacy emerged as a concern as soon as the internet became commercial. In early 1995, Lawrence Lessig warned that the internet, though giving us extraordinary potential, was “not designed to protect individuals against this extraordinary potential for others to abuse.” The same technology can “destroy the very essence of what now defines individuality.” Lessig urged that “a constitutional balance will have to be drawn between these increasingly important interests in privacy, and the competing interest in collective security.” Lessig envisioned that creating property rights in data would help individuals by giving them control of their data. As utopian as property …
Gone Fishing: Casting A Wide Net Using Geofence Warrants, Ryan Tursi
Gone Fishing: Casting A Wide Net Using Geofence Warrants, Ryan Tursi
Washington Law Review
Technology companies across the country receive requests from law enforcement agencies for cell phone location information near the scenes of crimes. These requests rely on the traditional warrant process and are known as geofence warrants, or reverse location search warrants. By obtaining location information, law enforcement can identify potential suspects or persons of interest who were near the scene of a crime when they have no leads. But the use of this investigative technique is controversial, as it threatens to intrude upon the privacy of innocent bystanders who had the misfortune of being nearby when the crime took place. Innocent …
Beware What You Google: Fourth Amendment Constitutionality Of Keyword Warrants, Chelsa Camille Edano
Beware What You Google: Fourth Amendment Constitutionality Of Keyword Warrants, Chelsa Camille Edano
Washington Law Review
Many Americans have potentially had their privacy rights invaded through invisible, widespread police searches. In recent years, local and federal governments have compelled Google and other search engine companies to produce the personal information of users who have conducted a search query related to a crime. By using keyword warrants, the government can conduct a dragnet search for suspects, imposing suspicion on users and exposing their personal information. The keyword warrant is a symptom of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment protection against suspicionless searches. Not only is scholarship scarce on keyword warrants, but also instances of these warrants are …
Self-Control Of Personal Data And The Constitution In East Asia, Dongsheng Zang
Self-Control Of Personal Data And The Constitution In East Asia, Dongsheng Zang
Articles
No abstract provided.
You Are Not A Commodity: A More Efficient Approach To Commercial Privacy Rights, Benjamin T. Pardue
You Are Not A Commodity: A More Efficient Approach To Commercial Privacy Rights, Benjamin T. Pardue
Washington Law Review
United States common law provides four torts for privacy invasion: (1) disclosure of private facts, (2) intrusion upon seclusion, (3) placement of a person in a false light, and (4) appropriation of name or likeness. Appropriation of name or likeness occurs when a defendant commandeers the plaintiff’s recognizability, typically for a commercial benefit. Most states allow plaintiffs who establish liability to recover defendants’ profits as damages from the misappropriation under an “unjust enrichment” theory. By contrast, this Comment argues that such an award provides a windfall to plaintiffs and contributes to suboptimal social outcomes. These include overcompensating plaintiffs and incentivizing …
Hacks, Leaks, And Data Dumps: The Right To Publish Illegally Acquired Information Twenty Years After Bartnicki V. Vopper, Erik Ugland, Christina Mazzeo
Hacks, Leaks, And Data Dumps: The Right To Publish Illegally Acquired Information Twenty Years After Bartnicki V. Vopper, Erik Ugland, Christina Mazzeo
Washington Law Review
This Article addresses a fluid and increasingly salient category of cases involving the First Amendment right to publish information that was hacked, stolen, or illegally leaked by someone else. Twenty years ago, in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court appeared to give broad constitutional cover to journalists and other publishers in these situations, but Justice Stevens’s inexact opinion for the Court and Justice Breyer’s muddling concurrence left the boundaries unclear. The Bartnicki framework is now implicated in dozens of new cases— from the extradition and prosecution of Julian Assange, to Donald Trump’s threatened suit of The New York Times …
Revising Reasonableness In The Cloud, Ian Walsh
Revising Reasonableness In The Cloud, Ian Walsh
Washington Law Review
Save everything—just in case––and search for it later. This is a modern mantra fueled by the ubiquity of smartphones, laptops, tablets, and free or low-cost data storage that leads users to store massive amounts of data in the cloud. But when users trust third-party cloud storage providers with private communications, they also surrender Fourth Amendment constitutional certainty. Existing statutory safeguards for these communications are lower than Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause standards; this permits the government to seize large quantities of users’ private communications stored in the cloud with only minimal justification. Due to the revealing nature of such …
Arrested Development: Arizona V. Gant And Article I, Section 7 Of The Washington State Constitution, Jacob R. Brown
Arrested Development: Arizona V. Gant And Article I, Section 7 Of The Washington State Constitution, Jacob R. Brown
Washington Law Review
In Arizona v. Gant, the United States Supreme Court held that the search of a vehicle incident to arrest is permissible in only two situations: (1) when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment; or (2) when it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest may be found in the vehicle. Because Gant expressed a standard more protective than that established by the Washington State Supreme Court, Gant induced a state of confusion in Washington, where it has long been maintained that article I, section 7 of the Washington …
To Test Or Not To Test: Article I, Section 7 And Random Drug-Testing Of Washington's Public School Student-Athletes, Kristi L. Helgeson
To Test Or Not To Test: Article I, Section 7 And Random Drug-Testing Of Washington's Public School Student-Athletes, Kristi L. Helgeson
Washington Law Review
In Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect the privacy interests of the nation's public school student-athletes from mandatory, random urinalysis drug-testing. This Comment argues that article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution provides Washington's student-athletes greater protection than the Fourth Amendment and, consequently, proscribes mandatory, random urinalysis drug-testing. It concludes by providing parameters for student-athlete drug-testing programs that will pass state constitutional muster.
State V. Young And The New Test For Privacy In Washington, Michael M. Suga
State V. Young And The New Test For Privacy In Washington, Michael M. Suga
Washington Law Review
In State v. Young, the Washington Supreme Court determined that the warrantless use of an infrared thermal detection device on the home of a suspected marijuana grower was a violation of Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. This Note argues that the court's test for determining privacy rights under Article I, Section 7 is flawed in form and fails to achieve those goals set forth by the court. It suggests an alternative test for Article I, Section 7 privacy rights as well as a remedial prerequisite standard of proof in cases involving minimally intrusive surveillance techniques.