Given this focus on press invasions, it is unsurprising that many scholars have seen their proposed new tort as interfering with the First Amendment guarantees of press freedoms. (See, e.g., Lorelai Van Wey’s Note, “Private Facts Tort: The End is Here.”) Ben Bratman’s 2002 law review article, “Brandeis & Warren’s ‘The Right to Privacy and the Birth of the Right to Privacy’” discusses the background of this issue in light of “the considerable focus that Brandeis and Warren placed on the print media and its alleged violations of privacy” (636).

In 1890, when Warren and Brandeis’ published their article, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights had yet to be applied to the states, although many states had their own versions. Despite this, in many ways “freedom of speech and the press” was viewed in stronger terms then than now (despite the fact that the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 was never challenged by the Supreme Court). There was, for example, no perceived difference between commercial and political speech–both were granted the same level of protection. The nineteenth century juries Thomas Cooley’s position on the issue was generally considered the most persuasive:

The constitutional liberty of speech and ofthe press, as we understand it, implies a right to freely utter and publish whatever the citizen may please, and to be protected against any responsibility for so doing, except so far as such publications, from their blasphemy, obscenity, or scandalous character, may be a public offense, or as by their falsehood and malice they may injuriously affect the standing, reputation, or pecuniary interests of individuals. (Bratman 637)

Warren and Brandeis were not unaware of this potential conflict, and carved out an exception to their proposed tort by adding a

“public interest” or “public character” exception to their tort, which recognized that the press or commercial photographers had to be free to record and report the actions of public characters and officials (Bratman 636)

In other words, even Warren and Brandeis, despite their argument that they were not inventing anything new at all, recognized that the right to privacy they were articulating had the potential to conflict with the guarantees of the First Amendment.

In their twenty-eight page piece, Brandeis and Warren chastised the journalists o f their day, particularly photojournalists, for prying into people’s private lives in search oqawdry and alluring “news,” and then made a cogent plea for the law to recognize a right to privacy and to impose liability in tort for these and other types of invasions of privacy. They got what they wanted–and more. (Bratman 624)

Much of their argument focused on limiting the public dissemination of private details of a person’s life, a goal that many find to conflict with First Amendment protections of speech and the press. But Warren and Brandeis saw the right to privacy as articulating an existing principle that had already been applied in many other contexts without constitutional problems: protections of one’s home, prohibitions of the publication of one’s private papers, and prohibitions against slander and libel.

Warren and Brandeis began their article by discussing the well-settled protections afforded by the common law to both people and property. The argued that the law had responded to “social, political, and economic changes” by expanding what it protected, such that the law now protected not just against battery, but the threat of battery (assault), as well as assaults on reputation (slander and libel) and even intangible “products of the mind,” like copyright and goodwill (Bratman 630).

The starting point of their critique of existing protections is the press:

The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and the vicious, but has become a trade. … To satisfy a prurient taste the details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of the daily papers. (Warren and Brandeis 196)

Warren and Brandeis proceed to reason that privacy deserves protection through analogy to existing law. Thus, the rights to “intellectual and artistic property” were “instances and applications of a general right to privacy.” In the case of copyright, for example, what is protected is not the quality of the writing or its artistic value: the “existence of the right [does not] depend upon the nature or value of the thought or emotion … [as] the same protection is accorded to a casual letter or an entry in a diary.” Thus, just because a photograph of me does not have artistic value does not mean it should not be protected, since its protection arises from being me, not from the effort invested by the photographer nor from its potential status as an important commentary on life. Even if I send a letter to someone else, they do not have the write to publish it without my consent. The underlying goal is to allow an individual to control the dissemination of what is, fundamentally, theirs. But it is not a property right in the traditional sense, and is not about physical possession or trespass:

The principle which protects personal writings and all other personal productions, not against theft and physical appropriation, but against publication in any form, is in reality not the principle of private property, but that of an inviolate personality (205).

And the invasion of privacy, they continue, is like the “injuries sustained … by an attack upon reputation … or a violation of honor.” In each case the injury is non-physical, but real, and similar injuries are already punishable by law. In short, “existing law affords a principle which may be invoked to protect the privacy of the individual” (206).

“Silos” by Sean Kelly. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

The push for “privacy” that demands an ability to allow us to restrict who sees what–enabled, for example, by new tools in Facebook and Google+–also creates and reinforces silos (filter bubbles, echo chambers) that prevent our exposure to different ideas. But  this move highlights potential conflicts between a number of rights: freedom of association and freedom of speech and the press (both from the First Amendment) and rights to privacy (from the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments). What is this conflict? Is it real? How can we (begin) to resolve it?

The Marketplace of Ideas

Core to many American arguments on behalf of the value to a liberal democracy (in the old sense of liberal) of the freedom to speak is the concept of a “marketplace of ideas,” articulated by both Thomas Jefferson and, perhaps most persuasively, by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. The idea is that only through free and prolific competition amongst ideas, achieved through open discussion, can one ascertain truth and, in turn, advance society. Without hearing falsehoods, one can never be sure of one’s truth, and through proving something false one verifies and re-invigorates truth and beliefs. But without the competition, truth is unobtainable, and even if obtained, belief in it becomes enervated and weak. Constant exposure to different viewpoints is absolutely key to a functioning, progressing society.

Republic.com and the Problem of Silos

In 2002, prolific author Cass Sunstein (in Republic.com, then again in Republic.com 2.0 in 2007) expressed deep concern about exactly this, arguing that trends in individualizing information flow were as harmful to democracy as were trends to centralize information control. In other words, having 1,000 individual silos tailored to personal interests could limit the free-flow of ideas as much as (or more than) having, say, three sources of broadcast news once did. In either case we would limit our exposure to diverse viewpoints and, in the individualized, modern case, also limit the beneficial unifying effect that shared viewpoints provided.

Free Speech and Privacy

This concern is different, though possibly related, to that expressed by Eugene Volokh in regards to free speech and privacy. His argument is with governmental regulations/laws/decisions that attempt to protect privacy by restricting what other people can say. That is, privacy laws that prevent, for example, a journalist from writing about my medical history infringe on the First Amendment.

In contrast to governmental action, the impact of speech silos on democracy is not a question of infringement on private liberties. Instead, through purely private decisions, freely achieved by my own decisions and without interference from government, the same pernicious, long-term impact on democracy and liberty is achieved. In one case, government blocks the sharing of ideas to protect me, while in the other, I block my own sharing of, and my own exposure to, the ideas of others. But in both cases, the marketplace is undermined.

But in the case of government regulations, the Constitution can be invoked as an authority, while in the case of Facebook and Google+ privacy settings, there is no legal check aimed at preserving the marketplace of ideas. Arguments for liberty, which appear to fruitfully favor a multiplicity of viewpoints in the case of government regulations that restrict speech in the name of privacy, instead favor allowing individuals and companies to enable avoiding the kinds of other viewpoints that Mill–and Volokh–argue are valuable for a liberty-loving democracy. One might argue to simply get government out of the privacy game at all (since the government has encouraged Facebook, for example, to focus on allowing privacy controls)–but that doesn’t deal with the very real market ($$$, eyeballs) demand for greater control over sharing.

Sunstein advocates for a larger governmental role in overseeing media and sites in order to guarantee that people have the option, at least, of exposure to a myriad of viewpoints. (Exactly how one might do this is far from clear, though.) But the core of the contemporary filter problem is not one of big corporations restricting our exposure (or not that alone) to new ideas. Instead, it is our own individual choices to limit our own exposure to alternative viewpoints that is to blame. A benevolent dictator might be able to counteract this trend, but a liberal democracy cannot (or can it?) do so through government fiat. The conflict, then, is not so much between constitutional rights as much as it is a conflict between core values: privacy and control vs. exposure and learning.

Education

So how can we attempt to solve this conundrum? An effective K-12 educational system, backed up by a robust university education, is the best societal approach I can imagine. (Individual parents can help, too.) A classroom is one of the few locations where we as a society have the chance to force people to be exposed to new ideas. Teaching and inspiring students to seek out alternative perspectives and critically analyze them–without rejecting the new and unusual out of hand–is perhaps the least coercive method I can imagine for maintaining a marketplace of ideas in the face of tools that enable an individual to opt out.

But I’m open to other ideas, so if you have any, please share!

Related articles

• Thinking about privacy and the First Amendment (inpropriapersona.com)
• The Echo Chamber Revisited (On the Media, npr.org)
• The Filter Bubble (amazon.com)

Daniel J. Solove

We should conceptualize privacy by focusing on the specific types of disruption and the specific activities disrupted rather than looking for the common denominator that links all of them. … Instead of construction an understanding of privacy from the top down by first seeking to elucidate an overarching conception of privacy, we should develop our understanding from a bottom-up examination of the problems based on analogical reasoning. (76)

He takes a common-law jurist’s approach to analyzing a problem, one enshrined in the legal requirement that American courts must deal above all with specific “cases and controversies,” not general theories or philosophical ideas. From the specific facts and harms one can then reason by way of analogy to larger concepts, deriving rules that can be applied to current and future situations. In short, his is a classic American approach to legal reasoning. But it’s classic for a reason: it works.

The Six

To facilitate his analysis, Solove likes to use “classifications” and “taxonomies.” He thus begins by dividing privacy into six types (which he notes “often overlap”). These six are not so much normative or suggested analytic categories as they are ones commonly used in privacy analysis:

1. the right to be let alone–Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis’ famous formulation of the right to privacy;
2. limited access to the self–the ability to shield oneself from unwanted access by others;
3. secrecy–the concealment of certain matters from others;
4. control over personal information–the ability to exercise control over information about oneself;
5. personhood–the protection of one’s personality, individuality, and dignity; and
6. intimacy–control over, or limited access to, one’s intimate relationships or aspects of life. (13)

1. The Right to Be Let Alone

This deeply influential category comes from Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis’ 1890 law review article, “The Right to Privacy,” and “views privacy as a type of immunity or seclusion” (18). Warren and Brandeis were responding to the growth of an increasingly invasive and fast-moving press by seeking to demonstrate how traditional common-law torts could be rationally extended to cover this new situation, without introducing any radically new concepts.

Though it seems to emphasize noninterference, it actually often consists “of a claim for state interference in the form of legal protection against other individuals” (18). In many respects, especially as articulated to deal with the situation of invasive journalism, it runs into potential First Amendment conflicts that require, at the very least, balancing.

2. Limited Access to the Self

The point of this view of privacy–closely related to the previous–is to allow “every man to keep his affairs to himself” and “recognizes the individual’s desire for concealment and for being apart from others,” but it “is not equivalent to solitude [nor] of withdrawal from other individuals” (18). Conceptually, one flaw with this view is that it provides little guidance “as to the degree of access necessary to constitute a privacy violation” (20). It also does not clearly indicate who decides: is it about me deciding what access others have to my self? Or is there a sort of absolute or universal standard that can be brought into play?

3. Secrecy

Judge Richard Posner called this “concealment of information,” or the “right [of an individual] to conceal discreditable facts about himself” (21). Solove describes secrecy “as a subset of limited access to the self,” but in only one dimension: “the concealment of personal facts” (22). According to Solove, this conception “underpins the constitutional right to information privacy, an offshoot of … cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade” (22). It is also the aspect of privacy I identify most firmly with a clear constitutional right: the Fourth Amendment right to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Legally, a privacy-as-secrecy approach often means that once a fact leaks, “it can no longer remain private” (22). Thus, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence “holds that matters that lack complete secrecy are not private” (22). This, garbage receives no protection because it is “knowingly exposed to the public” since it is “readily accessible” (22). Surveillance from aircraft does not implicate the Fourth Amendment either, since “the surveillance was conducted from a public vantage point” (22).

But such characterizations of privacy as secrecy misses out on a desire for confidentiality: “sharing the information with a select group of trusted people” (23). Protecting confidentiality–which I, picking up on Solove’s work, identify as a 19th-century concern–is a critical form of privacy for many people, especially in the medical context. Thus, understanding privacy as secrecy alone is too restrictive and too limited.

4. Control over Personal Information

According to Solove, a Clinton-era task force on privacy defined it as follows:

an individual’s claim to control the terms under which personal information–information identifiable to the individual–is acquired, disclosed, and used (24).

This is also the conception that healthcare laws related to privacy (like HIPPA) use. But again, this conception is overly narrow, since excludes non-informational aspects of privacy, “such as the right to make certain fundamental decisions about one’s body, reproduction, or rearing of one’s children” (25). It also generally fails to define what “control” means, and usually fails to effectively define the scope of what is protected (25–26).

Another, related approach to control over personal information makes information into property. This Lockean approach is “the backbone of intellectual-property law,” which itself derives much of its justification from the “romantic-author” notion of individual authorial (or inventive) creation: “one gains a property right in something when it emanates from one’s self” (26). The tort of appropriation, and the connected right of publicity, “protects people against others’ using their image or likeness for commercial gain.

But this conception also has problems, too. Personal information “is both an expression of the self and a set of facts–a historical record of one’s behavior” (27). Denying journalists the right to present those facts implicates the First Amendment, among other issues. Thus, truth is a defense to defamation, which itself is tort related to privacy.

Additionally, personal information is often formed through relationships (see confidentiality, above, too), and not by a single individual’s “self.” Thus, one person recounting their own story may implicate the story of someone else–should they then be restricted from doing so because it infringes on the other person’s privacy?

5. Personhood

The conception here is to protect “the integrity of personality,” and “often is used in conjunction” with other theories (30). Solove describes this as the theory underlying Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Roe v. Wade. It involves “choices central to personal dignity and autonomy” (31). I tend to agree with those that identify this right as more connected to liberty and autonomy than to privacy, but others (like Judith DeCew) suggest that there is an “intuitive notion of privacy invoked in the constitutional privacy cases” (31). In any case, I find “personhood” to be too vague to be useful, and I also find that thinking of it in terms of autonomy is more revealing than conceptualizing it as privacy.

6. Intimacy

This perspective connects privacy with personal human relationships as well as “individual self-creation” (34). It can be difficult to define exactly what is “intimate,” except in terms of what “individuals want to reveal only to a few other people” or similar “in-practice” definitions (35). It does help to unify certain conceptions of privacy with autonomy, though: “abortion is a private decisions because it is ‘an intimate one’” (36).

But again, this definitions tends to be too broad in scope. It is in many respects not much more useful than the term “privacy” itself (36). At the same time, it is overly limiting as a general theory because it is overly focused on interpersonal relationships alone.

So Now What?

Solove contends that the above theoretical conceptions “fail on their own terms” and “never achieve the goal of finding the common denominator” (38). So what should we do, then? His proposal is to dispense with “top-down” philosophy and to instead focus on the problems we face in four dimensions: method, generality, variability, and focus.

His method is pluralistic and draws on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s family resemblances: “privacy is not one thing, but a cluster of many distinct yet related things,” Solove writes (40). By generality, he means that he will pick a useful level of generality, one that is contextual and practical, not abstractly philosophical (40–41). He also acknowledges the variability of privacy and its historical and cultural contingency. He does not seek to provide a firmly fixed foundation for privacy, but does feel “it can still have sufficient stability while accommodating variability” (41). Finally, he limits his focus on privacy to privacy problems. Again, he seeks to avoid the abstract and philosophical and to stay with the particular and specific (41).

Solove’s approach may not appeal to philosophers, but it has the advantage (and, perhaps, disadvantage) of being practical for lawyers and judges to deal with. I approve of his practical goals, and I think the methods he uses can be usefully extended to historical cases as well as contemporary ones.

“Visible downgrading” by Alex Wellerstein. CC BY 2.0 license.

The concept of “privacy”–as in “the right to privacy”–can be understood in a number of ways. This multitude of potential meanings and uses is partly why the concept is controversial, confusing, and perhaps even contradictory. Previously I have discussed the difference in perceptions of privacy in the 19th century, where the legal focus seemed to be more on “confidentiality” than what we have come to understand as “privacy” today. That is, the 19th century concern was with maintaining trust relationships between people rather than with protecting either secrecy or autonomy (although that is not to say that these were not valued).

Autonomy

This changed with the 1890 publication of the Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis law review article called “The Right to Privacy.” In this article, Warren and Brandeis are actually concerned with something more akin to autonomy than secrecy: “from Greek autonomia, from autonomos  ‘having its own laws,’ from autos ‘self’ + nomos ‘law’” (from Apple’s dictionary app).  That is, allowing people to control their own self-identity, rather than allowing it to be exploited by (for example) yellow journalists. Secrecy, on the other hand, is about keeping something away from the knowledge of others. The concepts are related, but distinct and different, and require different legal approaches.

“Paparazzi” by Clément Seifert. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 licensed.

The Warren and Brandeis article advocated for the protection of a person’s “inviolate personality” and the “fundamental right to be let alone.” They were not concerned with illegal government searches of private residences–or even the trespasses of journalists in private land–but rather with the publication and dissemination of information that, they believed, most properly belonged to a person. In other words, their approach was akin to a broad notion of copyright or “right of publicity,” because it proposed allowing people to control the publication of their own likeness (photos of themselves, for example). Such control was based on a kind of “moral right,” in a sense, to own one’s own self, or to be “autonomous.” The implications of a right to control the publication of information about one’s self has the potential to conflict with the First Amendment rights of others in a way that a right to privacy as secrecy might not.

In 1928, now a Supreme Court justice, Brandeis wrote in dissent in Olmstead v. U.S. that the right to privacy was the “right to be left alone–the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people.” Cornell’s Legal Information Institute explains that the right to privacy has thus “developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment.” The focus on a “right to privacy” as “a liberty of personal autonomy” is why the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection), and not the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure), is often so important today when discussing privacy, and is the constitutional underpinning for key decisions like Roe v. Wade.

Secrecy

“Completely Tapped” by Byung Kyu Park. CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

A right to secrecy is most closely aligned with the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) and with trespass, and less with the “penumbra” of due process or equal protection. A right to keep things secret is also about “inviolability” in some sense. Thus, in Olmstead, Brandeis could argue that a wiretap could intrude on a “right to privacy”–the “right to be let alone”–as part of a violation of the Fourth Amendment, even though no publication or dissemination had necessarily occurred. A right to autonomy, to protect one’s self, might well require a right to secrecy in a case involving wiretaps, but it has less value in protecting abortion rights, for example, where the real question is one of self-determination, not secrecy.

Approaching a right to secrecy legally, one might prosecute an overzealous journalist not for the publication of embarrassing information–and certainly not for photos taken in public places–but for a trespass involved in obtaining private letters. In some cases, the First Amendment might still be implicated (think of the Pentagon Papers), but the restraint on speech is much weaker when what is being restricted is not directly the publication of materials, but rather the manner in which they were obtained.

In this sense, then, data privacy laws–which Eugene Volokh, for example, has explained are in many ways in conflict with the First Amendment–might be more readily disentangled from that constitutional problem if they are realigned with traditional laws against trespass. The law, then, would not be focused on preventing publication (although that might be an issue still, and might still have First Amendment implications), but rather on punishing transgressions or trespasses.

Digital edition of “The Right to Privacy”

Part of the historical work I’ve been doing focuses on the history of privacy and the introduction of new technologies, like the telegraph. In terms of of the U.S. Constitution, I’ve been focused mostly on the Fourth Amendment (which regulates searches and seizures). However, the First Amendment’s speech protections are also potentially implicated, especially when it comes to modern information privacy law–a point Eugene Volokh explored in his 2000 law review article, “Cyberspace and Privacy: A New Legal Paradigm?”

I am not going to as fully analyze the issue here, but I wanted to begin thinking about it. To do this, I’m going to think about Volokh’s points in relation to Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis’s 1890 law review article, “The Right to Privacy.” This highly influential piece advocated for “the fundamental right to be let alone.” But is it impossible to reconcile such a right with an equally compelling right to free speech?

Of course, the right to “free speech” is not an absolute right, and there are many constraints (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is, of course, classic). But still, the requirement that the government “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” is explicitly written in the Constitution, whereas the “right to privacy” is part of its “penumbra.” So perhaps the debate is easier for originalists like Antonin Scalia, who can end the debate by asserting that the original meaning of the Constitution does not include a right to privacy, but it does include a free speech provision.

The Warren and Brandeis article attacks the new gossip columns and photographs made possible by new technologies of the era. They connect their argument for the protection of a person’s “inviolate personality” to the protections afforded, via copyright for example, to “personal writings and all other personal productions, not against theft and physical appropriation, but against publication in any form” (206).

Volokh quickly dispenses with arguments that copyright, despite its restrictions on speech, is itself barred by the First Amendment, primarily on the grounds that courts have not allowed “intellectual property owners the power to suppress facts” (1065, citing to Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises). Thus, I may publish a cutting-edge exploration of new historical materials I spent years digging out of the archives and while you may not simply photocopy and redistribute my work, you can write your own work drawing on all the labor I spent bringing forth these new facts. (See also, “You do not get an ‘A for effort’ with copyright.”)

But do I have a right to prevent the publication of personal facts about me, however embarrassing they may be? (Remember, copyright protects my creative expression, not the bare facts themselves, so it’s no help here.) What about restrictions on publishing my criminal history? Or my video rental history? Or  my credit card purchasing history?

If I obtain these items via a contractual arrangement, Volokh says, there is no problem, because enforcing contractual restrictions on speech does not offend the Constitution. But what if I get them without agreeing to a contract? Can the government still prohibit their publication? Volokh says there is a problem here (1092–94).

Very often, free speech protections are analyzed under a “marketplace of ideas” paradigm. In this analysis, we need speech–and allowing it is good–because it contributes to our ability to make decisions, and the greater the marketplace, the better decisions we can make. Bad ideas are countered by more speech, not by restricting their entry into the marketplace.

My criminal history and credit card history are certainly good information to have if you are evaluating me for a job or elected office, so in a marketplace analysis, they shouldn’t be suppressed. But there is a realm of “non-public-concern” topics that can be restricted (accidental nudity, for example)–but Volokh suggests this is too slippery of a concept to function as an effective test (1094–95).

Government can regulate speech if there is a “compelling state interest” (1106). Is privacy protection sufficiently compelling? Relatedly, is the penumbra-derived right to privacy sufficient to counter free speech arguments?

Volokh argues that privacy rights are “statutory or common-law” derived, and are not “analogous to a constitutional right” (1108). Furthermore, the First Amendment only prevents government interference with speech, not private actions to interfere with it; thus, privacy rights might well only protect against government violations, not allow for government to regulate non-government interference with privacy.

Volokh attacks Warren and Brandeis most directly when he writes:

On the other hand, if the claim is that the ability of private parties to communicate personal information about others
by itself “destroy[s] individual dignity and integrity and emasculate[s] individual freedom and independence,” “deprive[s people] of [their] individuality,” makes it impossible for “intimate relationships [to] exist,” or denies that a person’s “existence is his own,” such a claim is simply false.

This is pretty close to the argument that Warren and Brandeis make when they attack gossip columns. But even if the claim is true, Volokh says restricting publication to protect this is unconstitutional:

Under current constitutional doctrine, the answer seems to be no. Though the Supreme Court has sometimes left open the door to the possibility of restricting truthful speech simply on those grounds, the general trend of the cases cuts against this: Even offensive, outrageous, disrespectful, and dignity-assaulting speech is constitutionally protected.

It seems to me pretty clear that Volokh does not agree with Warren and Brandeis. I still think there’s potential for an alternative approach that might allow for certain kinds of privacy protection without overly violating the U.S.‘s very strong speech protections (note that this isn’t a problem generally in Europe, which permits much greater restrictions on speech when it serves as a protection against, for example, Nazism), but it’s not yet obvious to me what approach would be.

Related articles

• Knowingly False Statements of Fact and the First Amendment (volokh.com)

“George Carlin” by mindelei (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Balancing strong First Amendment (“free speech”) speech protections with the desire to protect the delicate sensibilities of America’s youth is always a complex task. Two seminal Supreme Court cases–Cohen v. California and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation–illustrate the struggle the Court has had to find the right path.

In Cohen, decided in 1971, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man wearing a jacked in a courthouse that attacked the draft with a four-letter word (“Fuck the Draft”). In that case, Justice Harlan, writing for the majority, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric,” and said that offended readers could simply turn away. A state has no right to ban profanity to maintain “civility.”

Nonetheless, in 1978 the court upheld fines imposed by the FCC on the owner of a New York radio station for broadcasting George Carlin’s “Filthy Words.” Why the difference? Is the medium of radio really so different that it requires different rules, ones that now do permit the state (in this instance, the federal government) to ban profanity? Or was Carlin’s speech in a different, less protected category than Cohen’s opinion on the draft?

The majority in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation sees no conflict with Cohen, and in fact cites Harlan’s vulgarity statement approvingly–but then proceeds to say that

content of that character [i.e., “vulgar,” “offensive,” and “shocking”] is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection under all circumstances, we must consider its context in order to determine whether the Commission’s action was constitutionally permissible.

Indeed, Cohen foresees this issue of considering the circumstances, and ties those circumstances to invasions of privacy interests, especially in the home:

The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.

This is the exception seized upon most strongly by the majority in Pacifica Foundation:

Patently offensive, indecent material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home, where the individual’s right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder. Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728.

(Additionally, the Court also argues for the importance of protecting children–an argument that the Court in Cohen found unconvincing, but which the majority here thinks is quite important.)

In his concurrence, Justice Powell makes the case that broadcast media are uniquely capable of intruding on “unwilling adults … in their homes”:

The result turns instead on the unique characteristics of the broadcast media, combined with society’s right to protect its children from speech generally agreed to be inappropriate for their years, and with the interest of unwilling adults in not being assaulted by such offensive speech in their homes. Moreover, I doubt whether today’s decision will prevent any adult who wishes to receive Carlin’s message in Carlin’s own words from doing so, and from making for himself a value judgment as to the merit of the message and words.

Justice Brennan, though, strongly dissents, and attacks the majority for imposing its views of words and morality on the public at large:

the Court’s decision may be seen for what, in the broader perspective, it really is: another of the dominant culture’s inevitable efforts to force those groups who do not share its mores to conform to its way of thinking, acting, and speaking.

Brennan also argues that there is nothing so invasive about radio as a broadcast media that uniquely allows it to invade the home:

unlike other intrusive modes of communication, such as sound trucks, “[t]he radio can be turned off,“Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298,302 (1974)— and with a minimum of effort. As Chief Judge Bazelon aptly observed below, “having elected to receive public air waves, the scanner who stumbles onto an offensive program is in the same position as the unsuspecting passers-by in Cohen and Erznoznik [v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205 (1975)]; he can avert his attention by changing channels or turning off the set.” 181 U. S. App. D. C. 132, 149, 556 F. 2d 9, 26 (1977).

In other words, for Brennan, there is nothing intrinsically different about radio. Unlike amplified sound–and like seeing a jacket with swear word on it–one can simply turn it off or turn away.

So–ignoring stare decisis–which approach do you find more persuasive? Is broadcast particularly invasive because it is transmitted into the home? Are children as a result particularly vulnerable? And what about the Internet, which while not a push medium like radio or TV, certainly enters the home?

I think analogy reflects a desire to economize on thought. Thus, if we construct evidential reasoning on the basis of, say, Bayesian networks, then–instead of creating a whole new network to reflect a new situation–we simply build on an old network, and replace nodes with new facts, build a few nodes, and generally spiff things up.

Related articles

• An argument for the “Inviolability of Telegraphic Correspondence” (inpropriapersona.com)
• The slow pace of Fourth Amendment change (inpropriapersona.com)
• The Fourth Amendment: from property to people (inpropriapersona.com)

In the old days, safes and locks kept client data secure. More recently, attorneys stored their data on local PCs and backed up to disk or tape, which is then stored under lock and key (preferably offsite).

Stealing data required physical access, Accessing data, though, could conceivably occur via legal means, including via subpoena and search warrant. The real protection from this was the existence of evidentiary privilege, which excluded legally protected materials regardless of how they were acquired.

Now on to Dropbox, Google, and so on. According to PC Magazine,

The updated terms specify that Dropbox will turn over data: to comply with the law; protect someone’s safety; prevent fraud or abuse on Dropbox; or protect Dropbox’s property rights. If Dropbox agrees to hand over data, the company will decrypt it before doing so. If you have encrypted it before storing it on Dropbox, though, it will remain encrypted.

…

Dropbox said it receives about one government request per month for its 25 million users. It also stressed that it doesn’t just hand over information when asked.

“Our legal team vets all of these requests before we take any action. The small number of requests we have received have all been targeted to specific individuals under criminal investigation,” Dropbox said in a blog post. “If we were to receive a government request that was too broad or didn’t comply with the law, we would stand up for our users and fight for their privacy rights.”

via Dropbox Defends Privacy, Law Enforcement Policies | News & Opinion | PCMag.com.

So what does this mean for lawyers storing client data? Well, if it’s protected under attorney-client privilege, it means that–as long as you trust Dropbox not to make a mistake–then such legal access is no more of a problem than with traditional files (and plenty of screw-ups occurred with traditional paper!). Trusting Dropbox is likely not much different from trusting any third party to store your data, paper or otherwise–and that’s pretty standard.

If, on the other hand, you are more concerned with non-privileged materials (trade secrets, perhaps, or other material that might be excluded at trial but still cause harm), then you likely should not trust your data to Dropbox or any other cloud-based or third-party solution of any kind. If you don’t want to go quite that far, try a system that fully encrypts your data first, before it goes across the wire and before it hits the remote server.

TrueCrypt then Dropbox meets these criteria, or a Dropbox-like service such as SpiderOak (which I use).

So the fact that Dropbox allows legal access to your data is not the end of the world for use of the cloud, even for lawyers. But for truly secure offsite storage, likely more secure than even old-fashioned paper storage, consider solutions that provide end-to-end encryption.

Related articles

• Dropbox Lied to Users about Data Security, Complaint to FTC Alleges (wired.com)
• Why Dropbox’s Privacy Policy Is OK (Just Proceed Carefully) (pcworld.com)