I wonder if Scalia let out a few fleeting expletives when he found out about the project.
Original source...
Sorry that my reply came across so sternly.I just thought it was funny. /shrug :/
I'll disagree w/ you here, but I appreciate your argument and tone w/ which you present it.I read the source, and while it is a pretty funny story and inspiring bit of activism, it doesn't seem to make Scalia look ignorant. He just reiterates that he doesn't feel those data need to be protected in the law. In a way I agree. Sure one might get info like so and so likes spaghetti, but it doesn't amount to anything, and it's not even guaranteed to be an accurate statement. Some of the data, like house value, might be better off if only non-digital & FOUO.
Anyways, he seems to pro-Free Speech with this stance. Protection from identity fraud would be a more important focus I think when discussing the issue, I believe.
You Scalia fans might appreciate this.
Spoiler :Last year U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave a public speech questioning the need for more privacy protections.
This year a Fordham University law professor teaching a course on privacy gave his class the project of turning up publicly available information on Scalia.
The fifteen-page dossier completely flipped Scalia out.
"It seems that Professor Reidenberg successfully created an active learning environment where his students took control and learned the subject in a way they will not soon forget."
Snip: His class turned in a 15-page dossier that included not only Scalia's home address, home phone number and home value, but his food and movie preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address and photos of his grandchildren, reports Above the Law.
Original source...
And the response from Professor Reidenberg (who I know!):
Spoiler :Im surprised by Justice Scalias characterization of the project. The scope of protection for privacy in our society is at the forefront of the public policy debate. I assign this research project annually and last year used myself as itssubject. The exercise never fails to provide a keen demonstration for my students of the privacy issues associated with aggregating discrete bits of otherwise innocuous personal information.
When there are so few privacy protections for secondary use of personal information, that information can be used in many troubling ways. A class assignment that illustrates this point is not one of them. Indeed, the very fact that Justice Scalia found it objectionable and felt compelled to comment underscores the value and legitimacy of the exercise.
Cleo
I read the source, and while it is a pretty funny story and inspiring bit of activism, it doesn't seem to make Scalia look ignorant. He just reiterates that he doesn't feel those data need to be protected in the law. In a way I agree. Sure one might get info like so and so likes spaghetti, but it doesn't amount to anything, and it's not even guaranteed to be an accurate statement. Some of the data, like house value, might be better off if only non-digital & FOUO.
Anyways, he seems to pro-Free Speech with this stance. Protection from identity fraud would be a more important focus I think when discussing the issue, I believe.
The teacher has a response to Scalia et al here: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/justice_scalias_3.html
I think what's being missed on all the perspectives on the privacy issue, and especially the privacy on information that businesses have issue, is that it should not be treated as an issue of privacy as much as an issue of property.
This is a fundamental failure of property rights.
In theory, a government employee can know more about you than legally they should, via a net search.First, the transparency of personal information that is created by private sector activities enables government to collect and use personal information purchased from the private sector in ways that side step political and legal checks and balances.
But what property rights are you talking about? What the city values your house at? Any other examples?
The only privacy/property right taht I see is the one the professor above sites in his response to Scalia:
In theory, a government employee can know more about you than legally they should, via a net search.
But all of that information should be considered the property of the private citizens. Some information is more iffy than others. But if a company is selling information on it's customers, then they are in reality selling someone else's property.
So if you love spaghetti and tell us on the internet, should we have to sign release agreements with you not to divulge that info, as your constitutional right? Don't ya think that's a little silly? It's simple common sense to refuse to give out information that you choose not to share. If a business refuses to deal with you on the grounds of your refusal to share info, they're 1. phishing (obviously!), or 2. they're possibly doing some kind of profiling (race, gender, etc..) that you might be able to sue them for).
Almost everything you do these days, especially online, requires personal information. E-mail, first and last name and address, phone number, home address, etc. etc. It would be very difficult to realistically adopt a policy where you refused to give out your personal information. In reality people are lazy, don't read privacy agreements, and fill in the little blank spaces on online forms when they want something. Not saying whether that is right or wrong one way or another but that is how it is.
I think you can make a non-originalist argument that the right to self defense emanates from the penumbras of the 2nd Amendment.
Which is the more centralized authority, a city council or a national court?but that would be an originalist argument, the framers were big proponents of self defense, even used the 2nd amendment to tell the states they are responsible for their own defense. Remember, it was the British attempt to seize an armory that triggered the war, the Framers were not too keen on letting a central authority decide if people can have guns.
If there's no legal context for you to be honest (e.g. there's a legal context to be honest on a credit card application or a government application, but not to some generic website or mail order company who you're just soliciting a catalog from) why tell the truth (intelligent forum discussions excluded)? In anonymous situations, you safeguard your own anonymity.