All Article Summaries

Privacy is not dead. Privacy rules are increasingly critical to protecting individual autonomy and political freedom, and to consumer protection.

Privacy is necessary for cities to remain politically and culturally diverse. Large cities initiate lawsuits to protect citizens’ privacy, but also collect large amounts of data, and may not protect privacy consistently.

As new surveillance technologies and smartphones become ubiquitous, courts in the United States and Europe struggle to apply traditional principles to protect civil liberties.

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Carpenter v. United States is revolutionary. The Supreme Court recognizes that Fourth Amendment privacy rights were intended to preserve a society free of constant surveillance.

Limits on government surveillance are often based on judicial review of “probable cause” alone. New technologies and surveillance techniques mean that the “probable cause” determination no longer protects privacy and liberty adequately.

Surveillance challenges policymakers to balance safety and stability with privacy and liberty. Changing technologies and social norms make this difficult. Regulators, legislators, business leaders, the public, and academics offer different perspectives on this problem.

Surveillance helps stop cyber harassment, the abuse of victims online. Police use technology to record evidence posted on social media or to identify anonymous perpetrators. However, surveillance can be intrusive.

Worldwide, government demands for access to private-sector data are increasing. A survey of 13 countries shows that current laws that govern such access are inadequate, failing to safeguard against abuse. Many systematic surveillance programs are secret.

The United States Supreme Court uses the term privacy in different ways. In conflicts between privacy and free speech, free speech tends to prevail. The Court’s Fourth Amendment rulings are inconsistent with the Court’s rulings on privacy under the Freedom of Information Act.

Police use data from cell phone providers to track the movements of suspects over a long period of time. Unlimited access to such data threatens privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.