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.

lr_jkr9_12_08supremecourt.jpg

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Accounting
Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Finance
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Estates and Trusts
Evidence Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Iowa)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Wm & Mary)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Second Amendment
Securities
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Archives

October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

 

« Microsoft: A Pro-Privacy Company? | Main | Lithwick's Real Problem »

November 04, 2005

Is Alito Strongly Pro-Privacy?

posted by Daniel J. 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.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at November 4, 2005 02:57 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/151.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Alito Strongly Pro-Privacy?:

» Weekend Blog Round-Up from SCOTUSblog
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... [Read More]

Tracked on November 6, 2005 10:42 PM

» Blawg Review #31 from IPTAblog
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... [Read More]

Tracked on November 7, 2005 02:49 AM

» Blawg Review #31 from IPTAblog
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... [Read More]

Tracked on November 7, 2005 02:51 AM

Comments

"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.

Posted by: John Armstrong at November 4, 2005 08:34 AM


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.

Posted by: Bruce at November 4, 2005 02:49 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.

Posted by: John Armstrong at November 5, 2005 02:16 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.

Posted by: scott at November 7, 2005 05:13 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..............................

Posted by: Steve at January 7, 2006 10:35 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

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

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Neil H. Buchanan
Miriam Cherry
Susan Kuo
Jonathan Lipson
Paul Ohm
Geoffrey Rapp
Susan Scafidi
Howard Wasserman
Timothy Zick






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
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

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member