By krisnelson on Apr 17, 2011 in constitution / history / law / search and seizure / technology
With the introduction of the telegraph in the 1800s, some jurists, recognizing the growing importance of telegraphic communication, advocated for a kind of “telegraph operator-customer” privilege.
Posted in constitution, history, law, search and seizure, technology | Tagged constitution, Fourth Amendment, history, law, Michigan Supreme Court, Missouri Supreme Court, search and seizure, telegraph |
By krisnelson on Apr 12, 2011 in constitution / government / history / law / privacy / search and seizure
The “mere evidence” rule, forbidding searches for documents that were themselves not “instrumentalities” crimes (or contraband themselves) lasted well into the twentieth century before being abandoned. So why were telegrams never explicitly covered by the rule?
Posted in constitution, government, history, law, privacy, search and seizure | Tagged Boyd v. United States, constitution, Fourth Amendment, law, privacy, search and seizure, supreme court, telegraph |
By krisnelson on Apr 6, 2011 in constitution / history / law / search and seizure / technology
Former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas M. Cooley, in a forward-looking article, advocated for extending Fourth Amendment protections to telegrams in 1879. Cooley articulated a position that both foreshadowed 20th century arguments over telephone wiretaps, and reflected his late 19th century concerns.
Posted in constitution, history, law, search and seizure, technology | Tagged Brandeis, common law, constitution, Fourth Amendment, Katz, privacy, search and seizure, supreme court, telegraph, Thomas M. Cooley |
By krisnelson on Apr 4, 2011 in constitution / government / history / law / search and seizure / wiretap
In Protections for Electronic Communications: the Stored Communications Act and the Fourth Amendment, Alexander Scolnik wrote:
As technology evolves, giving individuals new forms of communicating and government agents increasingly sophisticated tools for surveillance, courts have had to continually interpret the Fourth Amendment and define the extent of its reach in light of these new advances.
Posted in constitution, government, history, law, search and seizure, wiretap | Tagged constitution, Fourth Amendment, Samuel Morse, supreme court, technology, telegraph, Thomas M. Cooley |
By krisnelson on Apr 2, 2011 in constitution / government / history / law / search and seizure / wiretap
For the Fourth Amendment – the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure – one of these foundational cases was Entick v. Carrington (1765). It was not until Katz in 1965 that the Supreme Court returned to the tradition of ex Parte Jackson and held that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.”
Posted in constitution, government, history, law, search and seizure, wiretap | Tagged Bill of Rights, common law, constitution, Fourth Amendment, Internet, Katz, search and seizure, trespass |
By krisnelson on Mar 21, 2011 in business / copyright / law / technology
David Pogue writes about a new startup that’s trying to work around the limitations media companies have placed on movie providers like Netflix and Redbox.
Posted in business, copyright, law, technology | Tagged copyright, David Pogue, law, Netflix, Redbox, technology, Zediva |
By krisnelson on Mar 11, 2011 in culture / government / history / law / privacy / technology / wiretap
It took nearly 50 years for Justice Brandeis’ ground-breaking law review article on the right to privacy to begin to widely influence judicial decisions. By 1948, though, a dozen or so states had begun to recognize the right as a part of common law.
Posted in culture, government, history, law, privacy, technology, wiretap | Tagged Brandeis, common law, Fourth Amendment, Katz, privacy, publication, trespass, Wilfred Feinberg |
By krisnelson on Feb 21, 2011 in constitution / government / history / law / privacy / search and seizure / technology / wiretap
Anuj C. Desai explains that the extension of the Fourth Amendment to cover postal mail, and then later to telephones, is based not so much on the inherently Constitutional nature of opening mail, but instead on the increasingly firm belief in the sanctity of the mail as expressed by Congress, legislators, and the public.
Posted in constitution, government, history, law, privacy, search and seizure, technology, wiretap | Tagged confidentiality, Congress, constitution, Fourth Amendment, originalism, search and seizure, supreme court, telegraph |