WaPo: Volokh: Smith v. Maryland as a good first-order estimate of reasonable privacy expectations

WaPo: Volokh: Smith v. Maryland as a good first-order estimate of reasonable privacy expectations by Stewart Baker:

Earlier, I promised a post that would make the positive case for the third-party doctrine and Smith v. Maryland.

The case against it seems pretty obvious. Privacy advocates are glad to tell us that the pace of technological change requires that we expand fourth amendment protections. “We’re putting our entire lives on line,” they say. “The government’s ability to collect and analyze data is growing. Only by expanding the fourth amendment can we even the balance that protects our privacy.”Or more colloquially, “Some new technologies are just plain creepy, especially in the hands of the government, and we want the fourth amendment to save us from them.”

The problem with that argument is that definitions of “creepy” change pretty fast. Brandeis wrote his seminal article on privacy because he thought the Kodak camera was creepy, and he wanted the law to prevent the hoi polloi from taking his picture. In the 1970s, the FBI’s ability to maintain clippings files on prominent Americans was a creepy source of power for J. Edgar Hoover. And the Attorney General actually imposed a fourth-amendment-style “predicate” requirement on future FBI clippings files about individuals. Today, though, Google has democratized the clippings file, and it’s too common to be creepy. Much as we may regret what we said to a reporter back in 1997, there’s no point in feeling violated every time it shows up in search results. So we don’t.

This entry was posted in Informational privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.