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

Search


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

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Mike Zimmer on From the other side at AALS . . .

    • Mike Zimmer on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Mike Zimmer on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • M.G.M on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • A.J. Sutter on Lawyers: Don’t Trade on Inside Information!

    • No Load Funds on Consumer Financial Product Safety?

    • grad student on Princeton and the Behavioral Revolution

    • Anon321 on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Steven Kaminshine on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Alex Kreit on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • Alex Kreit on Election Night 2009

    • mikeb302000 on Election Night 2009

    • Neal Goldfarb on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Orin Kerr on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • MYarnell on Curricular Reform Revisited

  •  

    Site Meter

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

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
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
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
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress