Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on On the Servicing Settlement

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on On the Servicing Settlement

    • A.J. Sutter on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • A.J. Sutter on Did Rahm Learn Anything From Cass?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Bill Reynolds on Did Rahm Learn Anything From Cass?

    • brainfish2 on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • A.J. Sutter on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Joe on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion

    • Joe on Same-Sex Marriage Opinion
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Is Alito Strongly Pro-Privacy?

posted by Daniel Solove

privacy2a.jpgAn interesting report written by U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has surfaced from 1972 entitled The Boundaries of Privacy in American Society. In the report, Alito takes a very strong stance toward privacy. Here are some of the highlights:

· “At the present time . . . we sense a great threat to privacy in modern America; we all believe that the thret to privacy is steadily and rapidly mounting; we all believe that action must be taken on many fronts now to preserve privacy.”

· “We believe the potential for invasions of privacy through the use of comptuers is so great that all private computer systems should be licensed by the federal government.”


· “[W]e are convinced that in recent years government has often used improper means to gather informtion about individuals who posed no threat either to their government or to their fellow citizens. . . . Most of the problem in this area involves surveillance by the federal governemnt of persons it believes to be subversive. In general, this is the province of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and it is completely improper for the Central Intelligence Agency to enter the field as it has apparently done in recent years. It is also quite wrong for military intelligence to get deeply involved in domestic surveillance.”

· Alito calls for strengthening the privacy protections of federal electronic surveillance law. He calls for shortening the period in which court orders can allow the government to engage in surveillance; and he recommends adding provisions to the law to regulate surveillance even when one party to the communication consents.

· “The Conference believes that no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden.”

· “We propose the following measures to prevent invasions of privacy by private consumer reporting agencies: 1. only “hard,” factual verifiable data should be collected; 2. only authoritative sources, such as employers, doctors, and public records should be consulted to obtain information; 3. only “relevant” information should be collected; 4. the qualified privilege against libel and defamation suits now granted to consumer reporting agencies should be rescinded.”

What conclusions should one draw from this report?

The report was written over 30 years ago, so it is unclear whether it reflects Alito’s current views. The views expressed in the report reflect the great concern over privacy in the 1960s and early 1970s that swept over the country in the early days of the computer. Alito’s views were thus not uncommon at that time.

The report appears to be written on behalf of “The Conference on the Boundaries of Privacy in American Society,” and Alito is the group’s chairman. Thus, he may simply be reporting the group’s conclusions, not his own personal convictions.

In the end, I don’t give this report much weight in evaluating Alito’s views, but it is an interesting document nonetheless.


 November 4, 2005 at 2:57 am   Posted in: Current Events, Privacy   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (8)

  1. John Armstrong - November 4, 2005 at 8:34 am

    “We believe the potential for invasions of privacy through the use of computers is so great that all private computer systems should be licensed by the federal government.”

    This scares me. Sure, this was a time when not everybody had a computer system of their own and he may well not advocate the same today. Still, “[W]e are convinced that in recent years government has often used improper means to gather informtion about individuals who posed no threat either to their government or to their fellow citizens”, so let’s insert the government’s hand directly into the tools for surveillance?

    I would really like to know what Alito would have expected this licensing to accomplish. What would be criteria to qualify or disqualify an applicant? A quick skimming of that section suggests that, for instance, Apple Computer might never have gotten off the ground; it’s easy to see how Wozniak and Jobs would be denied a license for the computers they built in their garage.

    The unease is more general, though. Something isn’t optimal so let’s get the federal government involved? Does Alito seriously suggest that the solution to a morally negative use of a technology (which is itself morally neutral) is a government decision on who may or may not use that technology? He can have my laptop when he pries it from my cold dead hands.

  2. Bruce - November 4, 2005 at 2:49 pm

    I had a similar initial reaction, but it’s mitigated somewhat by the fact that in 1972 a “private computer system” would almost certainly have been a business mainframe.

  3. John Armstrong - November 5, 2005 at 2:16 pm

    Bruce:

    As I said, the quote was from before the era of personal computers. I came back at the end, though, and questioned whether this means Alito is a supporter of the government (and the federal government, specifically) regulating and controlling whatever can be used for any ill purposes.

  4. SCOTUSblog - November 6, 2005 at 10:42 pm

    Weekend Blog Round-Up

    In nomination news: Concurring Opinions asks, “Is Alito Strongly Pro-Privacy?” The Legal Ethics Forum has this post on “Judge Alito and the Vanguard Recusal Question.” The Brady Campaign released this statement on Alito and a ban on fully automatic mac…

  5. IPTAblog - November 7, 2005 at 2:49 am

    Blawg Review #31

    Welcome to Blawg Review #31, the weekly guide to the best posts in the legal blog world. This week, Blawg Review will fall in love, geek out, go online, get some useful advice and maybe even engage in some light…

  6. IPTAblog - November 7, 2005 at 2:51 am

    Blawg Review #31

    Welcome to Blawg Review #31, the weekly guide to the best posts in the legal blog world. This week, Blawg Review will fall in love, geek out, go online, get some useful advice and maybe even engage in some light…

  7. scott - November 7, 2005 at 5:13 pm

    Holy Cow! I am a technologist, and I have strongly harbored exactly these fears and concerns regarding privacy for a number of years. Particularly since the rise of companies like Choicepoint and the broader and broader application and use of Credit scoring. With medical records not very far off, and the use of DNA testing for a number of diseases, this paranoia has only grown.

    My greatest objection to Alito was based on his deference to police authority in 4th amendment questions; I feared he would be exactly the opposite of what he expresses here. If this is indeed his work and he still adheres to it, I’ll be popping of a letter to my Senators asking them to support him.

  8. Steve - January 7, 2006 at 10:35 pm

    The strategy, if you want to call it that by those opposing Alito, is weak. It’s so weak I call it “The CAP Strategy Against Alito is a Byrd CAP Strategy”

    On the issue that they attack, Alito seems very progressive based on his stewardship of the “Boundaries of Privacy in American Society” task force. Things must be looking mighty bad in the anti-Alito camp for this to be their strategy. It looks for all I can tell to be an effort to Bork him from within the republican party like Meirs. That’s not going to happen, and it is telling of just how weak the argument against Alito is from those who oppose and are organized against his nomination…………………………

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress