AU: Information Privacy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
==February 9== | ==February 9== | ||
[http://wendy.seltzer.org/au/infopriv/location.html Location Privacy] | [http://wendy.seltzer.org/au/infopriv/location.html Location Privacy] | ||
==February 11== | |||
Location Privacy, part 2 | |||
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-923 Illinois v. Caballes, 2005] | |||
* Review [http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/02/google-latitude-adds-location.html Google Latitude] and one other location-based service or technology (RFID, GPS, satellite mapping, Dopplr, etc.). What privacy should we expect and demand against government use? against private use? against our own over-disclosure? | |||
Revision as of 17:50, 9 February 2009
January 14
- Warren & Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. No. 5 (1890).
January 21
No new reading.
January 26
Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace: two chapters
January 28
Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems, July, 1973
February 1
Privacy from Government: The Fourth Amendment, excerpting
* Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) * Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) * Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) * Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
February 3
Privacy from Government: Wire and Electronic Communications Privacy
February 9
February 11
Location Privacy, part 2
- Review Google Latitude and one other location-based service or technology (RFID, GPS, satellite mapping, Dopplr, etc.). What privacy should we expect and demand against government use? against private use? against our own over-disclosure?