Privacy in Cyberspace Reference Library:

This is a collection of readings that are relevant to the topic but didn't make it into the individual lessons. Many of them are general background, others are in-depth treatments of particular topics. Enjoy!

• What's Private and What's Not: Social Security Numbers? Credit Card Numbers? Medical Information?
  This page discusses some real-world threats to privacy that may be exacerbated in cyberspace. You need not read all of the information on this page, but it is worthwhile spending a few minutes on the page just to get a feel for the common threats to privacy. (details)
• What's Privacy and What's Not: Getting Personal Information
  Knowx brings you information about your fellow citizens--maybe more information than you'd like. Click here for a more detailed look at this company's business. (details)
• "Coping With Identity Theft" (details)
• Introduction to Cookies: How Websites Collect Your Private Information
  Section 3.4 of this FAQ (frequently asked questions) is a useful introduction to cookies. (details)
• Cookies
  Focus on section 2.9 for particularly useful information. (details)
• Cookie-Blocking Tools
  This site provides a list of cookie-blocking tools. Take a minute and browse if you are interested. (details)
• Cookies
  Want some more information about cookies? This is the place to go. (details)
• Whose Privacy Is At Risk?
  Browse through this report of the Federal Trade Commission that surveyed privacy practices on the web. Pick a section that interests you and read it--You need not read the entire report. (details)
• Whose Privacy Is At Risk?

  Abstract: The Federal Trade Commmission surfed children's web sites to review privacy practices and found that 86% of sites collected personal data, 30% posted a privacy policy, and 4% asked the children to get parental permission. Skim the FTC report if you are interested in the details.

  (details)
• Whose Privacy Is At Risk?

  Abstract: The Federal Trade Commmission surfed children's web sites to review privacy practices and found that 86% of sites collected personal data, 30% posted a privacy policy, and 4% asked the children to get parental permission.

  (details)
• Privacy Protection Via Voluntary Initiatives: Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P)
  This is a not-so-technical description of P3P.

  Abstract: P3P enabled applications will allow users to be informed about web site practices and "will enable users to exercise preferences about web sites' privacy practices."

  (details)
• P3P
  This web page provides an overview of P3P with technical specifications. This is NOT required reading! (details)
• Privacy Protection Via Voluntary Initiatives: TRUSTe
  TRUSTe "seeks to promote the adoption of electronic commerce by providing users with a trusted privacy mark (or brand). TRUSTe can review and audit sites to ensure that they correctly disclose their information practices." (details)
• Privacy Protection Via Voluntary Initiatives: Privacy Watchdog

  Abstract: Answer a quick (seven question) survey to analyze the privacy policies on the web sites that you regularly use. Based on the results submitted by "watchdog" participants, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) will begin to build lists of those sites with privacy policies and those without.

  (details)
• Encryption
  Encryption is a way of scrambling a message so that unauthorized persons cannot read the message. Encrypting a message is analogous to putting the message in a safe. The "key" that is used to unscramble an encrypted message is analogous to the "combination" used to unlock the safe. The longer the key, or combination, the more secure is the message. (details)
• Privacy Protection Technologies: Encryption
  Encryption is a way of scrambling a message so that unauthorized persons cannot read the message. Encrypting a message is analogous to putting the message in a safe. The "key" that is used to unscramble an encrypted message is analogous to the "combination" used to unlock the safe. The longer the key, or combination, the more secure is the message. (details)
• Privacy Protection Technologies: Anonymous Remailers
  Anonymous Remailer Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (details)
• Privacy Protection Technologies: Anonymous Remailers
  This site provides more information relating to privacy and anonymity on the Internet. (details)
• Privacy Protection Under the Law:
  Search and Seizure:
  
  Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
  Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

  Abstract: In the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was geared toward the protection of property. The Court's inclination to protect property quite clearly is reflected in its 1928 decision in Olmstead v. United States (277 U.S. 438 (1928)).
  
  In Olmstead, the Supreme Court held that use of a wiretap to intercept a private telephone conversation was not a "search" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. One of the grounds on which the Court justified its result was that there had been no physical intrusion into the person's home. Under Olmstead's narrow view of the Fourth Amendment, the amendment was not applicable in the absence of physical intrusion. Thus, without trespass or seizure of any material object, surveillance was beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Olmstead Court.
  
  However, in its well-known decision in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court rejected Olmstead's "trespass" doctrine, articulating, in its place, a Fourth Amendment jurisprudence based on the protection of individual privacy. In Katz, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places: "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection¼ But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
  Thus, the Court held that physical penetration of a constitutionally protected area is not necessary before a search and seizure can be held to violate the Fourth Amendment.
  
  According to the Court in Katz, "once it is recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects people-and not simply "areas"-against unreasonable searches and seizures it becomes clear that the reach of that Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure." Thus, although the Government's activities in Katz involved no physical intrusion, they were found to have violated the privacy on which the petitioner justifiably relied and thus constituted "search and seizure" within the meaning of the 4th Amendment.
  
  Changing technology precipitated the shift from protection of property to protection of privacy. In 1968, just one year after Katz, Congress passed Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act authorizing microphone surveillance or wiretapping for law enforcement purposes, and requiring a warrant, based on probable cause, prior to such surveillance or wiretapping.

  (details)
• Privacy Protection Under the Law: Marital Privacy and the Right to Procreate (details)
• Privacy Protection Under the Law: A Right to Anonymity?
  Is there a right to anonymity? The most recent United States Supreme Court case dealing with this issue was McIntyre. Skim the Supreme Court's opinion. At issue in McIntyre was the constitutionality of an identification requirement. When you read the case, focus on the court's discussion on anonymity. What role might anonymity play in a constitutional democracy? What considerations indicate that there should be limits on anonymity? (details)
• Privacy Protection Under the Law: Existing Congressional Legislation
  For more information on any of these statutes, see http://thomas.loc.gov

  Abstract: Title III (requiring a warrant for wiretapping) Privacy Act of 1974 Privacy Protection Act Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986

  (details)
• Pending Congressional Legislation:

  Abstract: (Only the following abstracts are required reading)
  
  Legislation pending in the United States House of Representatives includes:
  
  H.R. 220 Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999 which limits the use of social security numbers and prohibits the creation of government IDs. Sponsor: Ron Paul (R-TX).
  
  H.R. 354: Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. Creates new property rights for owners of databases of public information. Sponsor: Howard Coble (R-NC).
  
  H.R. 358: Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. Requires health plans and insurers to protect confidentiality of medical records and allow patient access. Sponsor: John Dingell (D-MI).
  
  H.R. 367: Social Security On-Line Privacy Protection Act of 1999. Limits disclosure of social security numbers by interactive computer services. Sponsor Rep. Bob Franks (R-NJ).
  
  H.R. 368: Safe Schools Internet Act of 1999. Required schools and libraries to install filters on Internet connected computers. Sponsor Bob Franks (R-NJ).
  
  H.R. 369: Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act of 1999. Prohibits the sale of personal information about children without their parents' consent. Sponsor Bob Franks (R-NJ).
  H.R. 514: Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1999
  

  (details)
• Pending Congressional Legislation: (details)
• Pending Congressional Legislation: United States Senate (details)
• Privacy Protection Under the Law: State Tort Law (US)

  Abstract: According to Prosser, there are four actions for tortious invasion of privacy. That is, one person can sue another person for the following "invasions of privacy": 1) Instrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs; 2) Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff; 3) Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eyes; 4) Appropriation of the plaintiff's name or likeness (for the advantage of the defendant)

  (details)
• Privacy Protection Under the Law: European Union

  Abstract: Under the EU PRivacy Directive, any company that trades personal information with any of 15 EU member states will be required to meet the EU's strict standards for privacy protection. EU members will not be permitted to send personal information to countries that do not maintain "adequate" standards of privacy, where "adequate" has not yet been defined.

  (details)
• In the News: Pentium III

  Abstract: In order to prevent fraud, Intel planned to have its Pentium III include an individualized number. The number would be transmitted across the Internet without the end user knowing so that e-commerce sites could track the customer to their computer.

  (details)
• Pentium III: Privacy Advocates Protest (details)
• Pentium III: Privacy Advocates Protest Vigorously

  Abstract: Opposed to Intel's new Pentium III, privacy advocates plan to boycott

  (details)
• Pentium III: Congress Gets in on the Act (details)
• Pentium III: Congress gets in on the Act (details)
• Pentium III: Intel Changes Chip

  Abstract: When privacy advocates protested the design of Intel's Pentium III, Intel responded to public pressure and changed the configuration of the chip. Is the new design for the better or for the worse? Did the privacy advocates win? Why or why not?

  (details)
• Further Reading: (details)
• Novell to Offer Data-Privacy Technology fo (details)
• When Privacy Is More Perilous Than the Lack of It, John Markoff (details)
• "The Netizen: Drudge Match", Andrew Shapiro, Wired News, 4/23/1998
  This article explores the Drudge decision within the larger Internet libel context. It is a great, quick source for a backdrop to the libel discussion. (details)
• "What is Libel and Other Questions", David Potts
  Written by a Canidian libel attorney, this is a short primer on libel and other terms and issues. Feel free to skim for quick ansewrs to questions about some of the terminology in this lesson. (details)
• Additional reference links on online libel and defamation.
  This is a list of links from a course, Defamation and the Internet, offered at Stanford. The page has lots of reference links to other articles, as well as to some of the cases mentioned in some of the reasons. (details)
• "Abortion 'hitlist' slammed in court", Courtney Macavinta, C|Net News, 2/2/1999
  This article describes the issues and background involved in the Nuremberg Files case. (details)
• "Planned Parenthood Wins Injunction in Oregon Case; Judge Orders American Coalition of Life Activists to Stop Threats 'To Bodily Harm, Assault, or Kill' Abortion Providers"
  Planned Parenthood press release about case from 2/25/1999. (details)
• "Abortion site causes free speech firestorm", C|Net News, 3/12/1999
  Links to more related articles on the "Nuremburg Files" case. (details)
• Home page for the Loudoun County Public Library.
  For the curious, here is the webpage for the library. (details)
• Privacy Readings in Web Page Format
  This is a list of the readings for this lesson in a slightly different format. (details)
  [top]