Comments on: Justice Scalia’s Conception of Privacy

By: Justice Scalia Makes Sense; Law Professor Responds by Instructing Class to be a Collective Jerk | Think Tank West

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:07:54 +0000

[...] January, Justice Antonin Scalia made some remarks about privacy at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law. The AP reported: Scalia said he was largely [...]

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:48:48 +0000

Scalia is great at saying and writing clever sounding things with logic full of holes. If you look at the root of his writings (especially his dissents) you find someone unbelieveably politically and ideologically driven and perhaps the least fit to serve on an US Supreme Court as you will ever find.

By: Sherri

Sherri — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:09:08 +0000

” Peter Winn – February 2, 2009 at 8:08 pm As to Dan’s point about addresses being sensitive, the Privacy Act explicitly prohibits federal agencies from renting or selling an individual’s name and address. 5 U.S.C. 552a(n).”

The someone needs to tell the quasi-government organization known as the post office to get out of the business of selling addresses to companies.

By: www.RajeshRR.com » Blog Archive » Scalia and Privacy

www.RajeshRR.com » Blog Archive » Scalia and Privacy — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:56:17 +0000

[...] hosted by the Institute of American and Talmudic Law, and reported at Concurring Opinions here. The justice was reported as being untroubled by privacy issues: Scalia said he was largely [...]

By: Juanita Harris

Juanita Harris — Fri, 01 May 2009 06:53:16 +0000

Like Justice Scalia, I don’t give a hoot who knows what groceries I buy, but like him I know that giving out my address to the whole world is something different, e.g. organizations placing lists of addresses of people who contributed money against that organization’s cause, as was recently done regarding Prop. 8. What does Dan think of that, by the way?

By: Peter Winn

Peter Winn — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:08:01 +0000

As to Dan’s point about addresses being sensitive, the Privacy Act explicitly prohibits federal agencies from renting or selling an individual’s name and address. 5 U.S.C. 552a(n).

By: Michael P.

Michael P. — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:59:04 +0000

Here is another report of Scalia's talk. I checked out the website of the IATL (FYI- a Chabad-Lubavitch organization that brings in big name speakers) and they sell audio/video of past speakers for a not so small fee.

By: Woodrow H.

Woodrow H. — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:52:59 +0000

Dan,

Excellent point regarding one’s address as private. Additionally, Congress seems to think one’s home address is entitled to privacy protection (in some instances) as well, by enacting the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2721.html)

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:52:26 +0000

Prof Kerr,

Scalia does appear to say that he does not find it what he buys, at least, to be a secret at all. But I think that’s why Prof. Solove is asking for a transcript or video of the speech, to get a better idea of the context.

Now, if anyone has a transcript or video of Justice Scalia buying groceries…

By: Maryland Conservatarian

Maryland Conservatarian — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:09:20 +0000

I agree with Mr. Kerr.

I am much more concerned with government-mandated privacy violations – such as my name and address available for all to see just because I give a few bucks to a candidate or a cause. Remembering how a fair amount of Law Professors (and you can guess which side of the political spectrum they fall) reacted to the AALS convention in San Diego after a certain donation came to light…Can we all agree that we can go a long way toward protecting privacy by simply not mandating so many disclosures?

By: Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:31:36 +0000

Dan,

It sounds to me like Justice Scalia and you are talking about two different issues: You are asking if there is any privacy interest at all in particular information, and Justice Scalia is considering which types of privacy violations he finds particularly troublesome and which ones he finds less troublesome. That’s my sense, at least.