Advertisement

More Coherent, Less Subjective, and Operational

  • Amitai Etzioni
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan’s Studies in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity book series (PSCYBER)

Abstract

In Chapter 1, I outlined a a cyber age privacy doctrine, or a CAPD, that seeks to account for important differences between the paper age and the digital one.1 This chapter attempts to show that the CAPD provides a coherent normative doctrine that can be employed by the courts and legislatures and that is more systematic, less subjective, and at least as operational as the prevailing privacy doctrines. It deals with the right to privacy vis-à-vis the U.S. government rather than as a protection from intrusions by private actors such as corporations. Section A summarizes and develops the previously published doctrine. Section B compares the coherence and objectivity of the CAPD to those of other doctrines and indicates the ways the CAPD can be operationalized.

Keywords

Personal Information Secondary Usage Common Good Fourth Amendment Privacy Violation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 16.
    Stephen E. Henderson, “After United States v. Jones, after the Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine,” North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 14 (2013): 434. “According to Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, ‘[t]he switching equipment that processed those numbers [was] merely the modern counterpart of the operator who, in an earlier day, personally completed calls for the subscriber.”Google Scholar
  2. Orin S. Kerr, “The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine,” Michigan Law Review 107, 4 (2009): 561–601.Google Scholar
  3. 18.
    Richard A. Epstein, “Privacy and the Third Hand: Lessons from the Common Law of Reasonable Expectations,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24, 3 (2009): 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 19.
    “The Taneja Group estimated the total cloud storage hardware market in 2010 was $3.2 billion, growing 31 percent per year to $9.4 billion by 2014.” Patrick Scully, “Cloud Storage” Broadcast Engineering 54, 11 (2012): 30–33.Google Scholar
  5. 21.
    Will Thomas DeVries, “Protecting Privacy in the Digital Age,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 18, 1 (2003): 291–292, 293.Google Scholar
  6. 22.
    Gerald G. Ashdown, “The Fourth Amendment and the ‘Legitimate Expectation of Privacy,” Vanderbilt Law Review 34, 1 (1981): 1289, 1315;Google Scholar
  7. Susan W. Brenner & Leo L. Clarke, “Fourth Amendment Protection for Shared Privacy Rights in Stored Transactional Data,” Journal of Law and Policy 14 (2006): 211;Google Scholar
  8. Andrew J. DeFilippis, Note, “Securing Informationships: Recognizing a Right to Privity in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence,” The Yale Law Journal 115, 5 (2006): 1086, 1092; Susan Freiwald, “First Principles of Communications Privacy,” Stanford Technology Law Review 3 (2007);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewis R. Katz, “In Search of a Fourth Amendment for the Twenty-first Century,” Indiana Law Journal 65, 3 (1990): 549, 564–66; Matthew D. Lawless, “The Third Party Doctrine Redux: Internet Search Records and the Case for a ‘Crazy Quilt’ of Fourth Amendment Protection,” UCLA Journal of Law and Technology (2007): 1, 3; Arnold H. Loewy, “The Fourth Amendment as a Device for Protecting the Innocent,” Michigan Law Review 81, 5 (1983);Google Scholar
  10. Christopher Slobogin, Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment Chicago, University of Chicago Press (2007): 151–164;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Scott E. Sundby, “‘Everyman’s’ Fourth Amendment: Privacy or Mutual Trust Between Government and Citizen?” Columbia Law Review 94, 6 (1994): 1757–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 23.
    “The EU’s proposal includes three elements in particular that lend themselves to a property-based conception: consumers are granted clear entitlements to their own data; the data, even after it is transferred, carries a burden that ‘runs with it’ and binds third parties; and consumers are protected through remedies grounded in ‘property rules.’“ Jacob M. Victor, “The EU General Data Protection Regulation: Toward a Property Regime for Protecting Data Privacy,” Yale Law Journal 123, 2 (2013): 515.Google Scholar
  13. 25.
    Amitai Etzioni, “The Privacy Merchants: What Is To Be Done?” Journal of Constitutional Law 14, 4 (2012): 935.Google Scholar
  14. 27.
    Christopher Millard, “Proposed EC Directives on Data Protection,” The Computer Law and Security Report 7, 1 (1991): 21.Google Scholar
  15. 34.
    Peter P. Swire, “Katz Is Dead. Long Live Katz,” Michigan Law Review 102, (2004): 913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 39.
    Maynard v. United States. Orin Kerr, “The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment,” Michigan Law Review 111, 3 (2012): 329.Google Scholar
  17. 42.
    Kevin V. Ryan and Mark L. Krotosi, “Caution Advised: Avoid Undermining the Legitimate Needs of Law Enforcement to Solve Crimes Involving the Internet in Amending the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,” University of San Francisco Law Review 47, 2 (2012): 321.Google Scholar
  18. 47.
    Paul M. Schwartz and Daniel J. Solove, “The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information,” New York University Law Review 86, 6 (2011): 1816.Google Scholar
  19. 48.
    Joel M. Gora, “The Fourth Amendment at the Airport: Arriving, Departing, or Cancelled,” Villanova Law Review 18, 6 (1973): 1038.Google Scholar
  20. 52.
    Susan Herman, Taking Liberties: The War on Terror and the Erosion of American Democracy, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
  21. 53.
    David Zeitlyn, “The Talk Goes Outside: Argument, Privacy and Power in Mambila Society, Towards a Sociology of Embedded Praxis,” Africa: The Journal of the International African Institute 73, 4 (2003): 607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 54.
    PHI is information, held by health care providers, defined as “1. Name including current, previous, and mothers maiden name, 2. Postal address and all geographical subdivisions smaller than a State… except for the initial three digits of a zip code…, 3. All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, [and so forth], 4. Telephone numbers, 5. Facsimile numbers, 6. Electronic mail addresses, 7. Social security numbers, 8. Medical record numbers, 9. Health plan beneficiary numbers, 10. Account numbers, 11. Certificate/license numbers, 12. Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers, 13. Device identifiers and serial numbers, 14. Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs), 15. Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers, 16. Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints, 17. Full face photographic images and any comparable images, [and] 18. Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code (other than a unique study ID).” David T. Fetzer and O. Clark West, “The HIPAA Privacy Rule and Protected Health Information: Implications in Research Involving DICOM Image Databases,” Academic Radiology 15, 3 (2008): 390–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 59.
    Harold C. Relyea, “Legislating Personal Privacy Protection: The Federal Response,” The Journal of Academic Leadership 27, 1 (2001): 43.Google Scholar
  24. 61.
    “The Act prohibits law enforcement officials from searching for or seizing information from people who disseminate information to the public [the media]. Where it applies, the Act requires law enforcement officials to instead rely on compliance with a subpoena.” Elizabeth B. Uzelac, “Reviving the Privacy Protection Act of 1980,” Northwestern University Law Review 107, 3 (2015): 1437–1468.Google Scholar
  25. 62.
    N. J. King and V. T. Raja, “What Do They Really Know About Me in the Cloud? A Comparative Law Perspective on Protecting Privacy and Security of Sensitive Information,” American Business Law Journal 50, 2 (2013): 424–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 66.
    Paul M. Schwartz and Daniel J. Solove, “The PII Problem: Privacy and A New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information,” New York University Law Review 86, 6 (2011): 1821.Google Scholar
  27. 68.
    Andrew A. Proia, “A New Approach to Digital Reader Privacy: State Regulations and Their Protection of Digital Book Data,” Indiana Law Journal 88, 4 (2013): 1608.Google Scholar
  28. 69.
    Amitai Etzioni, “The Privacy Merchants: What Is to Be Done?” Journal of Constitutional Law 14 no. 4 (2012): 950. Ted Bridis, “FBI: Data Brokers Probably Act Illegally,” The Washington Post, June 22, 2006, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062200932.html. Martin H. Bos-worth, “FBI Uses Data Brokers, ‘Risk Scores’ to Hunt Terrorists,” Consumer Affairs, July 11, 2007, http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/07/fbi_risk_scores.html.Google Scholar
  29. 70.
    Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.Google Scholar
  30. 97.
    Eve Brensike Primus, “Disentangling Administrative Searches,” Columbia Law Review 111, 254: 257. Russell L. Weaver, “Administrative Searches, Technology and Personal Privacy,” The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 22, 2 (2013): 571.Google Scholar
  31. 110.
    Amitai Etzioni, “The Privacy Merchants”; Julia Angwin, Dragnet Nation: A Quest for Privacy, Security, and Freedom in a World of Relentless Surveillance (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2014).Google Scholar
  32. 118.
    Amitai Etzioni, How Patriotic is the Patriot Act? Freedom versus Security in the Age of Terrorism (New York: Routledge, 2005).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Amitai Etzioni 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amitai Etzioni

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations