Prof. Mark Tunick tunick@fau.edu
POS 3626 Honors Privacy Fall 2010 http://www.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/privacy/index.html

Description: The seminar examines U.S. law regarding government and private invasions of privacy. We explore the value of privacy,  the role of technology in shaping societal expectations of privacy, and how we are to weigh the competing interests we have in privacy on the one hand, and in publicity, access to information, and crime control on the other. Readings include case law, social history of privacy, anthropology, literature, legal scholarship, and philosophy.

Requirements: Grades will be based on participation (10%), brief assignments (20%), a group project (20%), and 3 short papers, averaging 5 pages each (50% total). The brief assignments may take the form of 1-2 page papers or in-class quizzes. Attendance is important. Missed quizzes cannot be made up, and each unexcused absence beyond 2 will result in an automatic 1/3 letter grade reduction for the participation part of your grade.
    To facilitate discussion, students are strongly advised to take notes on the readings and class discussions. Sample briefs are online. You may use any notes you authored for in-class quizzes. Be sure to bring to each class the reading for that day's class.
    Students agree to adhere to the honor code (http://www.fau.edu/divdept/honcol/academics_honor_code.htm). You are encouraged to discuss course material with each other, but with the exception of the group project, all assignments must be entirely your own work, and you are not permitted to copy or borrow from the drafts, outlines, or reading notes of others. If you have any doubts about what constitutes plagiarism or a violation of the honor code, consult with the professor beforehand.

Office Hours: Before and after class, or stop by HC 133 any time, no appointment needed. To arrange to meet at a specific time, phone 6-8670 or email me at tunick@fau.edu

Readings:  Böll, The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum; Rosen, The Unwanted Gaze.  Court cases are available at Westlaw (preferred) or Lexis-Nexis via the FAU library database, as are recommended cases or law review articles. All other required readings are in the Course Readings section of Blackboard or online via a link given below. There will also be screenings of two films.

Introduction
8/23. Defining privacy
Discussion of JS Mill's criticism of secret ballots.
For those interested: Mill, Representative Government, ch. X; Doe v. Reed, USSC June 24, 2010; 2010 WL 2518466
Recommended: Erwin Chemerinsky, 'Rediscovering Brandeis's Right to Privacy', 45 Brandeis L.J. 643 (2007)

8/25. Rosen, The Unwanted Gaze, pp. 3-53; and Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Company, 154 Cal. App. 3d 1040 (1984)
Recommended film: Snap Decision, dir. Metzger (2001)

8/30. Rosen, The Unwanted Gaze, pp. 54-158, 196-224; Lessig, "Privacy and Attention Span," 89 Geo.L.J. 2063 (2001)
Recommended: Daniel Solove, "'I've got nothing to hide' and other misunderstandings of Privacy," 44 San Diego L.R. 745 (2007).
For those interested: Ontario v. Quon (US Supreme Court, June 17, 2010): finding no 4th Am violation when state employer monitors text messages

Film: Rear Window, dir. Hitchcock, 1954 (1:54) Sunday, August 29th, 7pm, AD 119

9/1. Feminist and Marxist perspectives on Privacy
Rdg: Solove and Schwartz, Privacy and Media, 69-76; Mark Andrejevic, "The Kinder, gentler gaze of Big Brother: Reality TV in the era of digital capitalism," New Media Society 4(2):251-70 (2002)

9/6 Labor Day. No Class

Historical and anthropological perspectives on privacy:  How do we decide whether someone's expectation of privacy is objectively reasonable? Are there universal standards or principles to decide this, or is the measure of reasonableness relative to one's culture or sub-culture? Has privacy become less important to those who grow up with facebook and reality tv? This section's readings lead us to think about whether the value of privacy is historically and culturally relative.

9/8. Flaherty, Privacy in Colonial New England, ch.1; ch. 2 (pp. 66-84)

9/13. Flaherty, chs. 3, 7

9/15. Gregor, "Exposure and Seclusion: A Study of Institutionalized Isolation Among the Mehinaku Indians of Brazil" (BB); Schoeman, Privacy and Social Freedom, ch. 7
Film excerpt from Luis Buñuel, Phantom of Liberty on youtube
For those interested: Background (with photos) on the Mehinaku

9/20. Wasserstrom, "Privacy: some arguments and assumptions"; Aries, Centuries of Childhood, pp. 100-110; John Schwartz, "A Legal Battle: Online Attitude vs. Rules of the Bar," New York Times, Sept. 13, 2009, online; Pete Thamel and Thayer Evans, “College Stars Run for Cover from Fans’ Cameras,” New York Times, Sept. 17, 2009, online; Stephanie Clifford, “Two-Thirds of Americans Object to Online Tracking,” New York Times, Sept. 30, 2009, online; Brad Stone, "For Web's New Wave, Sharing Details is the Point," New York Times, April 23, 2010, online; Laura Holson, "Tell-All Generation Learns to Keep Things Offline," New York Times, May 9, 2010, online.
For those interested: Abu-Lughod, "The Most Important Moment" (Bedouin Defloration Practice)
 

The value of privacy: Why is privacy important? Is it good for its own sake, or is it valued because it is a means to some other worthwhile end? Not everyone agrees privacy is so good. David Brin, in The Transparent Society, asks: why should we care about privacy if we have nothing to hide? He also argues that anonymity makes it easier to dehumanize and harm others. So, is privacy really such a good thing?

9/22. Privacy and human dignity
Rdg: Fried, "Privacy" (also at jstor) ; Bloustein, 'Privacy as Human Dignity'
For those interested: Judith J. Thomson, "Right to Privacy," Philosophy and Public Affairs 4(4):295-314 (1975)(available at jstor)

9/27. Privacy and economic efficiency
Rdg: Richard Posner, "The Economics of Privacy," Amer Econ Rev 71(2):405-9 (1981); Joseph Siprut, “Privacy through anonymity: an economic argument for expanding the right of privacy in public places,” 33 Pepp. L. Rev. 311 (2006)

9/29. Critics of privacy
Rdg: Arndt, "Cult of Privacy"; Bettelheim, "The Right to Privacy is a Myth"; Fred Cate, "Principles of Internet Privacy," 32 Conn. L. Rev. 877 (2000); Robert Frost, "Mending Walls," available online
Recommended: Info on Driver's Privacy Protection Act from EPIC (discussed in Cate); Film: The Conversation, dir. Francis Ford Coppola's (1974)(1:53)

For those interested: Theodor Fontane, Effi Briest (and Fassbinder's film version); Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed (1974); David Brin, The Transparent Society; Tunick, 'Does Privacy Undermine Community?', Journal of Value Inquiry 35:517-34 (December 2001), available online.

Legal protections of privacy: There are a number of ways in which the law may provide protection against invasions of privacy. The common law and state statutes recognize some invasions as tortious; the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches by state actors. Federal and state laws, state constitutions, and contract and property law also provide some protections. We focus on torts and on the 4th Amendment.

Torts

10/4. Introduction to privacy torts
Rdg: Warren and Brandeis, 'The Right to Privacy' (1890); Prosser, "Privacy"; Froelich v. Adair, 516 P. 2d 993 (1973)
Paper One Due

10/6. Intrusion upon seclusion
Rdg: Lake v Wal-Mart Stores, 582 NW 2d 231 (1998); Summers v. Bailey, 55 F 3d 1564 (1994); Dietemann v Time, Inc., 449 F 2d 245 (1971). See original Life article on Dietemann.
10/10 (Sunday): The Film "Cape Fear" (1961) (1:44); 7pm, AD 119

10/11. Public Disclosure of Private Facts
Rdg: Sweenek v Pathe News, 16 F Supp 746 (1936); Gill v Hearst Pub. Co., 253 P 2d 441 (1953)(BB); DeGregario v. CBS, 473 NYS 2d 922 (1984); Penwell v Taft Broadcasting, 469 NE 2d 1025 (1984); Bonome v. Kaysen, 2004 WL 1194731 or 32 Media L. Rptr 1520 (2004)[posted at BB/Course Readings/1st item].
For those interested: Amy Gajda, "Judging Journalism: The Turn Toward Privacy and Judicial Regulation of the Press," 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1039 (2009); Steinbuch v. Cutler (start here); NYT articles: on public sex in England; on Duke student online postings of sex exploits with other students

10/13. Public Disclosure (continued); Appropriation of Name or Likeness
Rdg: Briscoe v. Reader's Digest, 4 Cal 3d 529 (1971); Gates v Discovery Communications, 101 P 3d 552 (2005); Lane v. MRA Holdings, LLC, 242 F Supp 2d 1205 (M.D. Fla 2002)

10/18. Privacy vs. the First Amendment: Do laws prohibiting publication of social security numbers violate the First Amendment?
Rdg: Ostergren v. McDonnell, 643 F. Supp 2d 758 (2009); Ostergren v. Cuccinelli, 2010 WL 2891576 (C.A.4 (Va.))(July 26, 2010)

10/20. Disseminating False or Misleading information
Rdg: Hellar v Bianco, 244 P 2d 757 (1952); Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Services, 23 Media L. Rptr 1794 (1995); Zeran v. AOL, 129 F 3d 327 (1997); Barnes v. Yahoo!, 2005 WL 3005602 (D.Or. 2005)
For those interested: Barnes v Yahoo!, 2009 WL 4823840 (2009), allowing case to proceed on promissory estoppel grounds; Rachel Donadio, "Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case," New York Times, Feb. 25, 2010, online (Italian court holds Google criminally responsible for content posted to Internet); Benz v. Washington Newspaper Pub. Co. and Bisney, 34 Media L. Rep. 2368 (D.C., 2006)

10/25. Literary perspective
Rdg: Heinrich Böll, The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum
For those interested: Film version, Lost Honor of Katharina Blum, directed by Victor Schlöndorff (1975) (1:49)

4th Amendment

10/27. Foundations
Rdg: Lasson, History and Development of the Fourth Amendment (pp. 13-61, 79-105); Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928); Katz. v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Paper 2 Due

11/1. Bodily integrity
Rdg: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), excerpts (Blackboard); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985); Safford Unified School District v. Redding (129 S.Ct 2633, June 2009)

11/3 Visual enhancements: Ponce v. Craven, 409 F. 2d 621 (1969); U.S. v. Mankani, 738 F. 2d 538 (1984); U.S. v. Minton, 488 F. 2d 37 (1973); Commonwealth v. Hernley, 263 A. 2d 904 (1970); U.S. v. Kim, 415 F. Supp. 1252 (1976); Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S., 476 U.S. 227 (1986); California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)

11/8 Garbage and heat waste
Rdg: California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988); U.S. v. Scott, 975 F. 2d 927 (1992); State v. Hempele, (576 A. 2d 793 (1990); Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)

11/10. DNA searches
Rdg: State v. Reed, 641 SE 2d 320 (2007); State v. Athan, 158 P 3d 27 (2007); Commonwealth v Perkins, 450 Mass 834 (2008); Commonwealth v. Cabral, 866 NE 2d 429 (2007); NYT Op-ed, 3/15/2010: "To Stop Crime, Share Your Genes," online.
For those interested: NYT article, online, on objections to scientists' use of DNA from Indian tribe; Erin Murphy, “The New Forensics: Criminal Justice, False Certainty, and the Second Generation of Scientific Evidence,” 95 Cal. L. Rev. 721 (2007)

11/15. Interlude: Theories
Rdg: Loewy, "The Fourth Amendment as a device for Protecting the Innocent," 81 Mich L.R. 1229 (1983), section 2; Sundby, "Everyman's Fourth Amendment: Privacy or Mutual Trust between Government and Citizen?", 94 Columbia L.R. 1751 (October 1994), pp. 1755-63, 1775-1782, 1787-1793; Slobogin and Schumacher, "Reasonable Expectations of Privacy," 42 Duke L.J. 727 (1993), pp. 727-58, 774-5.

11/17 GPS surveillance
Rdg: U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983); U.S. v. Garcia, 474 F 3d 994 (7th Cir 2007); U.S. v. Maynard, 2010 WL 3063788 (Aug 6, 2010)(excerpts on Blackboard)
Recommended: Tunick, "Privacy in Public Places: Do GPS and Video Surveillance Provide a Plain View?", Social Theory and Practice 35(4):597-622 (2009)(at Blackboard, or online)

11/22. Public restrooms
Rdg: U.S. v. Billings, 858 F. 2d 617 (1988); Smayda v. U.S., 352 F. 2d 251 (1965); Bielicki v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 371 P. 2d 288 (1962); Britt v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 374 P. 2d 817 (1962)
For those interested: California Penal Code Annotated, Sec. 647 (BB)

11/24. Privacy and property rights
Rdg: Rakas v. Illinois, 439 US 128 (1978); People v. Lacey, 3 Misc 3d 1103 (2004); State v. Mooney, 588 A. 2d 145 (1991)

For those interested:
Is a police search valid if based on the consent of your friend/roommate/spouse ("third party consent")? Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990); Georgia v. Randolph, 547 US 103 (2006).
Can police receive fruits of "private searches"? U.S. v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984); Walter v. U.S., 447 U.S. 649 (1980); U.S. v. Jarrett. 338 F 3d 339 (2003)

11/29. Group Presentations

12/1. Group Presentations
Paper 3 Due.

Web Sites on privacy:

• Center for Democracy and Technology
• EPIC Online Guide to Privacy Resources
• Privacy forum: online journal on privacy issues
  
  

Additional notes:
Policy on Accommodations: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), students who require reasonable accommodations due to a disability to properly execute coursework must register with the Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) -- SR 110 (561-799-8010) – and follow all OSD procedures.

Academic Integrity Policy:Students at Florida Atlantic University are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards. Academic dishonesty is considered a serious breach of these ethical standards, because it interferes with the university mission to provide a high quality education in which no student enjoys an unfair advantage over any other. Academic dishonesty is also destructive of the university community, which is grounded in a system of mutual trust and places high value on personal integrity and individual responsibility. Harsh penalties are associated with academic dishonesty. For more information, see University Regulation 4.001 and http://www.fau.edu/divdept/honcol/students/honorcode.html

Classroom Etiquette Policy: In order to enhance and maintain a productive atmosphere for education, personal communication devices, such as cellular telephones and pagers, are to be disabled in class sessions.