ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by B. McLeod - 1 week, 1 day, 16 hours, 38 minutes ago

   In this particular area, I fear Justice Scalia must be blissfully ignorant.  Indeed, if anybody accessed the subscription data bases that charge for personal data, they could have collected a lot more, including his SSN, the state in which he resided when it was issued, every address he has lived at in the last 30 years, the identity of every person who lived at any of those addresses with him, all the same information about each of those people, and a host of other handy little facts (completely adequate, actually, for any criminal looking to steal his identity).  Much of this information can only be in these databases because it was sold or otherwise made available by agencies of the federal or state government.  If Justice Scalia would like to be able to rule on privacy issues on an informed basis, he should ask to see a test run on him in the public records databases that Lexis/Nexis, Westlaw or Loislaw market to attorneys.  Given his reaction to Reidenberg’s class project, I suspect Justice Scalia might well soil his robe when he sees what is really out there, accessible by thousands of database subscribers.

2. Posted by There it goes! - 1 week, 1 day, 15 hours, 48 minutes ago

   The point. See Scalia missing it.

3. Posted by Al Veoli - 1 week, 1 day, 15 hours, 45 minutes ago

   Isnt FORDHAM one of those TTT schools?

4. Posted by Barrister - 1 week, 1 day, 12 hours, 29 minutes ago

   Ah yes…the dulcet tones of B. McLeod! I totally agree! I mean, when B. McLeod served on the Supreme Court of the United States he never…no wait, B. McLeod isn’t even a lawyer, nor will he earn a JD by trolling on an ABA message board created FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE ACTUALLY…*sigh*

5. Posted by B. McLeod - 1 week, 1 day, 11 hours, 12 minutes ago

   In truth, my JD (conferred by authority of the Board of Regents, and upon the recommendation of the faculty) is in a dusty frame on my wall, in the company of certificates of admission from several courts.  Obviously, however, “Barrister” can’t tell the difference, most probably for the reason that it is not a lawyer at all, perhaps even not yet a law student.  Certainly, it would be unlikely to receive “the recommendation of the faculty” for a JD from any law school.  And, with its excessive obnoxiousness, unfounded boastfulness, and demonstrated absence of legal reasoning, how could it ever pass the bar to be admitted by even one court?  Not.  Clearly not.

6. Posted by J - 1 week, 1 day, 10 hours, 55 minutes ago

   If nothing else, you gotta admit that’s a witty response by Reidenberg.

7. Posted by IATS, JD - 1 week, 1 day, 7 hours, 27 minutes ago

   QOUTH the ABA Journal: “Comments are a place for our ...
     ( DIVING KLAXON FROM WWII SUBMARINE )
     ” AHOOGA! AAHHOOOOGGAA! !”)
         -=> readers <=-
   “to debate—sometimes quite vigorously—the issues we cover,” EVERMORE (with apologies to Poe).
     Some “personal” Scalia information was published on national TV, e.g., HIS “confession” that he earned straight A’s, including in Latin and Greek, throughout at least grades 1-12.
     I wish that he would have fessed up and said whether the Greek lessons were classical, modern or both!
   —-

   I’m Afraid To Say, JD (Just Dumb)

8. Posted by Divinissima - 1 week, 22 hours, 26 minutes ago

   I think it is PATHETIC that LEOs, attorneys, judges, and all the other people that are in power find it INSULTING to apply the same rules/regulations that THEY advocate for the common citizen!

   They easily forget that they SERVE the people, and NOT the other way around!

   INjustice Scalia is so BLIND and out of touch with what is really going on that it is unreal—such as the new [UN]professionalism displayed by LEOS (mainly cops) who abuse, beat, torture and taser (to death) citizens without need or warrant.  At this point his “ignorance” must be deamed as ARROGANCE and plain STUPIDITY unfortunately, at OUR COST!

   INjustice Scalia needs to resign and STOP making stupid OFFENDING comments to US!

9. Posted by Conlaw - 1 week, 22 hours ago

   Scalia’s a strict constructionist, and thus the obtaining of information from the internet, to promote freedom of information under the Constitution, should be welcomed.

10. Posted by john - 1 week, 18 hours, 8 minutes ago

    “conferred by authority of the Board of Regents, and upon the recommendation of the faculty” 
    That’s gotta be a JD from the UC system… am I right B.Mac?

    Conlaw:  But you forget, the internet wasn’t around in 1789, so Scalia’s traditionalism can be perfectly consistent when he objects to using it to obtain public information…

11. Posted by Barrister - 1 week, 18 hours, 1 minute ago

    Comment removed by moderator.

12. Posted by Barrister - 1 week, 17 hours, 5 minutes ago

    It makes absolutely no sense to leave B. McLeod’s half-baked lay rantings on the board, while removing mine. I am far from the only ACTUAL lawyer with an ACTUAL JD who is fed up with reading ABA Journal articles only to find B. McLeod’s JD-less, nonsensical drivel on virtually every thread.

13. Posted by JAG - CWP (Ohio) - 1 week, 15 hours, 51 minutes ago

    I disagree with most of the labels in #12.
    I’m the only one who regularly IDs my state.

    I am not licensed, have no LB, LLB, or JD.

    My first proposition of law was c. the late 1940’s. I opined that White/Colored schools and water fountains were inappropriate. My view eventually ripened, several years later.
    In 1956 (high school graduate) my proposition of law on speed limit a through street failed (insurance adjuster, police prosecutor, and I on a street corner). The Ohio Suprem Court sustained my propsition in 1963.

    In the early 1970’s I clerked for a civil rights sole practitioner. Most of the time my work was post-judgment (after the feces hit the fan).

    I’ve written briefs that motivated a court of appeals to reverse itself.

    I wrote a brief for the court of appeals on a misdemeanor, but it ruled in favor of the prosecution. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied discretionary review ant the USSC 6-3 per curiam noted probable jurisdicyion and summarily reversed. I helped on an eensy part of the later brief. There was no oral argument beyond the first appellate court.
    I intervened as lay amicus curiae in the Supreme Court of Ohio c. 1971, AFTER the Court denied review to counsel for the defendant. who lost in the trial court, court of appeals and Supreme Court, with his 35 page First Amendment argument. The Court allowed my 03 page amicus brief and reversed 7-0 with order to discharge defendant, based on the law, the charge and the evidence discussed in my brief.

    I’ve pointed out minor errors of substance in a decision of the present Supreme Court of Ohio and the error was correcyted.

    I recently filed a two page amicus brief with the Supreme Court of Ohio on a pending case.

    It may follow, may not follow,or may ignore my argument. Whatever it decides to do, life will go on.

    Hate / love mail to JADOG@Safe-mail.net
    2009-04-30-5 1617 -0400

14. Posted by SickofLawyers - 1 week, 13 hours, 37 minutes ago

    As a lawyer I wasn’t aware that I had to submit by JD and law licenses to the website in order to read or comment.

    Scalia is totally missing the point. As usual.

15. Posted by B. McLeod - 1 week, 10 hours, 53 minutes ago

    Great state, Ohio.  Phil Ochs was from Ohio.

    Great index of lyrics, with chord notations:

    http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/

16. Posted by Jape - 1 week, 44 minutes ago

    I are a lawyer.  It don’t make me smarter.  If I was a doctor I’d try to fix Barrister.  He don’t play nice.

17. Posted by David Narrow - 1 week, 3 minutes ago

    As a strict constructionist, Justice Scalia presumably should not believe that the Constitution creates a right of privacy, which is not explicitly contained therein.  The “right” to privacy, however much we cherish it, was created by those despised “activist” judges who previously served on his august employing body, based on reasoning that such a right fell within a “penumbra” of more explicit constitutional rights.  Ah, the irony!

18. Posted by Disgustipated - 1 week, 2 minutes ago

    Barrister - get over yourself.  Lots of us here are lawyers, but you seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder and something to prove.  Stop using every comment block as an opportunity to get in a dig at B. McLeod - it is incredibly boorish and tiresome for everyone else, and noone except you is impressed by it.

19. Posted by To the contrary - 6 days, 23 hours, 58 minutes ago

    Seems to me Scalia understood the point perfectly.  His commetns demonstrate that.  The point being whether such information and activities are and should be protected by the First Amendment.  As Scalia observes, just because something is legal doesn’t mean you should do it.  There is much that is offensive yet protected by the First Amendment.  Anyone would be rightly annoyed at someone purposely digging into their private information; even more so when that person is in a position such as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.  Scalia never said it should be illegal - in fact, he said the exact opposite.

    As with far too many “news” stories these days, and nearly everything on this ABA Journal site, much ado about nothing.  A stirred-up flap with no real substance at its core.

20. Posted by Pete Clarke - 6 days, 23 hours, 26 minutes ago

    Steamed Scalia—one of my favorite Italian dishes!

21. Posted by V.A. Carney - 6 days, 23 hours, 17 minutes ago

    Scalia, the “strict constructionist” - but only when it comports with his rigid ideology - is the victim of a delicious irony.  Well done, Professor!
    Now wouldn’t it be wonderful to see Nino follow Souter into retirement?

22. Posted by Ray - 6 days, 23 hours, 5 minutes ago

    As usual, Scalia gets a bad rap from most of the legal community.  He clearly stated that it was legal but showed poor judgement - just like many of the comments provided.  Sound judgment is what is missing from today’s legal education.

23. Posted by Donald - 6 days, 22 hours, 1 minute ago

    I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on television.  Seriously, perhaps B. McLeod is Barrister’s alter ego.  I think lawyers are supposed to suffer mental health issues at a greater rate than the non-lawyer population.  He (they) could be one of them.

24. Posted by Lex Loci - 6 days, 21 hours, 59 minutes ago

    So, to prove that such acts are offensive the professor ordered his students to do the acts.

    Good thing the professor was teaching privacy, not criminal law.

    The professor so values privacy that it doesn’t matter whose privacy he invades. Because his motives are noble and for the general welfare it does not matter if his actions hurt an individual.

    I’m certain the professor thinks his omelette is delicious..

25. Posted by solusipse - 6 days, 21 hours, 55 minutes ago

    Kudos to Reidenberg for dramatically demonstrating what so many others merely talk about in theoretical terms AND for the appropriateness of tagging one of the biggest hypocrites in public life today. Let’s see how Scalia’s intellectually dishonest defense of ideological positions evades a “strict construction” of the admonition that Congress shall make no law abridging free speech.

26. Posted by silencedogood - 6 days, 21 hours, 29 minutes ago

    Are people really that bored that they will troll an ABA blog when not a lawyer?  If so, please seek help.  You REALLY, REALLY need it.

27. Posted by Lawyer Who Respects the Bill of Rights - 6 days, 21 hours, 27 minutes ago

    Mr. Scalia amply demonstrates that Neanderthals don’t recognize their own hypocrisy.

28. Posted by John G - 6 days, 21 hours, 24 minutes ago

    Justice Scalia was properly treated here. He attracted Prof Reidenberg’s attention by saying that privacy concerns were overrated. It’s not in the least in poor taste to give him an opportunity to show what privacy concerns can feel like to the indiividual whose privacy is compromised. 

    And as the unjustly reviled B McLeod pointed out in the first post above, the students could have found a whole lot more if they had chipped in perhaps a dollar each to access a commercial service.

    A national newsmagazine in Canada did an article last year on the personal information of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada - who was not amused, but she had not been saying that it was not a problem! And most of the information came from US sources… Go figure.

29. Posted by John G - 6 days, 21 hours, 22 minutes ago

    That should be ” to give him (Justice Scalia) an opportunity to learn”.... sorry.

30. Posted by JDirk - 6 days, 21 hours, 18 minutes ago

    The comment sections for these articles should be removed.

31. Posted by smh7650 - 6 days, 21 hours, 16 minutes ago

    Business must really be down - lots of people with legal opinions and too much time on their hands.

32. Posted by Joe - 6 days, 20 hours, 58 minutes ago

    lets see if he will have them do Ginsburg next year.  or Obama, maybe they can find the birth record in Kenya.

33. Posted by Joe - 6 days, 20 hours, 55 minutes ago

    Now that I think about it.  That is what they are doing in a class at Fordham?  Now I am wondering why that school is highly ranked.  That seems like something a class at one of those “unaccredited” schools in Cali would do.

34. Posted by sb - 6 days, 20 hours, 50 minutes ago

    Second removed comment from Barrister I have found: Is that (hopefully) STRIKE TWO??

    —Hoping for the third, so we don’t have to wince at any more of the personal attacks claiming to be constructive discussion.

35. Posted by sb - 6 days, 20 hours, 48 minutes ago

    B. McLeod: “This is my opinion: I don’t like apples.”

    Barrister: “Oh, yeah?  Well, I’m a lawyer and you’re not, nyah nyah nyah!  And your mom is fat!”

36. Posted by idk - 6 days, 20 hours, 37 minutes ago

    I second the Kudos to Professor Reidenberg for illustrating a point. 
    We can agree legal and “right” don’t always go hand in hand. 
    Being tired of privacy invasions and others profiteering on information I reasonably believe to be private without my consent are legitimate concerns. 
    Maybe its time to link these two, legal & “the right thing to do” with regard to privacy.  Isn’t that what Reidenberg is asking us to consider?

37. Posted by KB - 6 days, 20 hours, 28 minutes ago

    He better get used to it. I suspect that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

38. Posted by sb - 6 days, 20 hours, 16 minutes ago

    Oh, and McLeod?  Remember the old saying: Never argue with a fool; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.

39. Posted by B. McLeod - 6 days, 20 hours, 4 minutes ago

    Good point.  A couple of other posters stopped responding to the attacks on the very first day.  I probably should have been quicker on the uptake.

40. Posted by Pal Al - 6 days, 19 hours, 28 minutes ago

    Scalia apparently sees trouble only in the exercise of poor judgment but refuses to see that the availability of private information may also be used for criminal or other improper purposes.  Private information should not be left to the judgment of others, whether good or bad.

41. Posted by Daniel Reitman - 6 days, 19 hours, 27 minutes ago

    This incident underscores why we see data privacy legislation.  Based on the description of what was gathered, those students were not far from gathering enough information to steal Justice Scalia’s identity.

42. Posted by The Wise Bard - 6 days, 18 hours, 43 minutes ago

    This is far from the first time that governmental leaders have shown how out of touch they are with the realities of everyday life.

    Prof. Reidenberg has effectively demonstrated, in a way that will be especially memorable for his class, the legal community reading this report, and, I hope, the broader public—not to speak of Justice Scalia and his judicial and legislative colleagues—just how easy it is to collect, and potentially to disseminate, such “private” information. While Prof. Reidenberg and his class showed appropriate restraint (to the best of our knowledge) on further use of the data they collected, there are many others capable of collecting such information for nefarious rather than instructive purposes.
    (BTW, I speak as a law professor who occasionally taught privacy law, and some of whose students provided me, as an end-of-term gift, with a review of material on me they collected on the web. Damn that speeding ticket 15 years ago—sure glad I paid it on time.)

    Personally, I think it is a significant public service to bring home to those insensitive to the need for improved protections of privacy and in a position to affect further developments of the law a more visceral sense of the nature of the intrusions (indeed, personal violations) now so easy to accomplish, and indeed, so common in our society. Justice Scalia has a fine sense of humor when the jokes are on others—apparently he has a harder time laughing at himself—and learning the appropriate lessons. Including that line about the corruptions of power…to which I might add, excessive insulation from the common travails of life.

    Bravo to Prof. Reidenberg.

43. Posted by jh - 6 days, 18 hours, 40 minutes ago

    I’m surprised the students could only come up with 15 pages on a Supreme Court justice. Way back in my journalism school days, a class called “Applied Fact Finding” was a requirement. We broke up into groups, selected government officials from the local, state and federal level then collected as much information as humanly possible about them.

    My group came up with appx. 300 pages on our local supervisor of elections, who had held elected office for less than a year. Selected examples of what we found include the names of her pets and when they got shots, what car she wrecked in the 80s, her father’s will and how much money she made at every job she ever held. The only info about her we could not get was her SSN.

    Each group’s compilation was then filed in the library with compilations from previous (and now subsequent) years for anyone to use. (FYI: Other groups did get their subjects’ SSNs, but I believe they were redacted before the compilations were filed for public access.)

    Moral of the story? This is called vetting. If you don’t want people to look into every detail of your background, don’t work in government (especially in Florida).

44. Posted by johan - 6 days, 18 hours, 19 minutes ago

    Since Scalia is so fond of original, historical interpretations of the Constitution, perhaps part of his problem is that there was no internet in 1776,  If we could just turn the clock back a couple of centuries!

45. Posted by Andy the Lawyer - 6 days, 18 hours, 7 minutes ago

    Maybe this will become a growth experience for Scalia.  I’m reminded of the definition of a liberal woman—a conservative woman who’s been arrested for something she didn’t do, sued for money she doesn’t owe, or who has found herself unexpectedly pregnant.

46. Posted by Edward Bear - 6 days, 17 hours, 29 minutes ago

    If Mr. Scalia paints a target on his chest by denigrating the need to protect personal information, thereby screaming “Hit me with your best shot!”, what are the grounds for his complaint if someone accepts his invitation?

47. Posted by sb - 6 days, 17 hours, 26 minutes ago

    I almost forgot about the article, with all the rants about trolls.

    It is rather amusing and ironic that Scalia has a problem with the class gathering information about him, since evidently he thinks we don’t need any more protections on said information.

48. Posted by Doug - 6 days, 17 hours, 20 minutes ago

    post #44 says “If we could just turn the clock back a couple of centuries!”  That is exactly what Scalia and his ilk are trying to do.

49. Posted by 2L - 6 days, 17 hours ago

    WELL DONE!!

    
    We need to protect our privacy MORE on the internet and elsewhere.

    
    It is troubling how—what is the word?—“steamed” people get when their privacy is violated but support violating our privacy.

    
    Vote/Support Privacy - always (especially now, frankly, when, as shown, it is so easy and even convenient to violate).

50. Posted by aka Gregor Samsa - 6 days, 15 hours, 21 minutes ago

    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 sped the merger of telecommunications-computer internet - information service networks.  Privacy issues in telecommunications were vetted in the early 1990s.  While Do Not Call Lists to protect the “leave-me-alone” aspects of privacy were authorized, actions were not taken to control the outflows of information generated from forms of public and private transactions.  There is too much money to be made mining the data.  The information can be used for identity theft, harassment, or perfectly legal mischief.  How do we get the genie back in the bottle?

    The constitutional right to privacy confers against the government protection from unjustifiable intrusions by the government.  To get control of secondary use of personal information, Congressional would need to enact legislation recognizing an individual’s right to control secondary use of personal information.  But, which information?  Many deeply embedded interests (private and public) value access to this information.  Whose use and access is justify?

    I agree we need to protect our privacy and we need more legal tools to do so.  But crafting those tools will not be easy.  There are a myriad of detailed issues to consider and work through.  Getting a Justice steamed, though, could be a first step.  Bravo Reidenberg.  Afterall, we can’t get a list of Scalia’s movie rentals because Bork got steamed during his confirmation process. But who rents movies any more?  Which way to the Castle?

51. Posted by stevelaudig - 6 days, 10 hours, 48 minutes ago

    Steamed pork in a blanket is quite a tasty Italian dish I’m told. Comeuppance though requires it be served cold. It’s time for arrogance, when combined with the ethics of an alley cat, to leave the bench.

52. Posted by zzyzxroad - 6 days, 5 hours, 43 minutes ago

    How does such private info get on the internet in the first place? If it’s so private who has the right to put it on the internet other than the person the information belongs to?

53. Posted by Nino's Right - 6 days, 32 minutes ago

    We celebrate swagger and bravado so much that we forget what is right and wrong.  As Nino said the exercise was legal but lackied good judgement.    In addition to being technically efficient maybe we JDs, lawyers, barristers, litigators, in-house counsel, government lawyers and plain ole’ attorneys should exercise better moral judgment instead of exercising our swagger and bravado.

54. Posted by I.D. Thief - 5 days, 23 hours, 49 minutes ago

    15 pages? I believe that Saclia was two harsh, a 15 page dossier means that either the class showed considerable discretion in the information that they reported, they weren’t trying too hard, or they simply weren’t versed in modern data mining techniques.

    I’m sure that Scalia must appreciate that the information available to those students would very simply render his 4th ammendment rights completely void. Not to mention, the data can cause enormous headaches once it’s used to steal his identity, blackmail him, etc.

55. Posted by fauxscot - 5 days, 23 hours, 26 minutes ago

    I think this was a great idea.  I further think that the point was not sufficiently made and that the info should be re-collected, expanded, and published on a web site for all to see.  There is NO crime involved in reading grafitti, nor reprinting it.  Any info he has effectively disposed of (by voluntary disclosure) removes any expectations of privacy.  It’s public info now.

    I see no better way of making this point to someone in a position to influence the issue.  Why not expand the project to the entire SC?  I’ll bet the group of nine wise folks would have their collective eyes opened quickly to the subtleties of this issue, and much more effectively than a 30 minute oral argument might.

56. Posted by muffler - 5 days, 20 hours, 4 minutes ago

    This is a typical case of Scalia’s “what is good enough for you shouldn’t apply to me” attitude.

57. Posted by ErnestPayne - 5 days, 18 hours, 32 minutes ago

    A delightful tale that gives a new meaning to the phrase Justice Is Served.

58. Posted by David Ehrenstein - 5 days, 13 hours, 51 minutes ago

    Indeed. Justice is served. With Fava beans and a nice Chianti!

59. Posted by John C. Randolph - 5 days, 13 hours, 10 minutes ago

    The exercise was not for the benefit of Professor Reidenberg’s class, it was for Mr. Scalia.  Sadly, Mr. Scalia chose to throw a tantrum instead of learning a valuable lesson.

    -jcr

60. Posted by Wm McDevitt - 5 days, 12 hours, 21 minutes ago

    Oh Quit your bitchen A.S. and welcome to the real world!

61. Posted by Apostle - 5 days, 12 hours, 2 minutes ago

    Identity theft is the last of the justice’s worries.  Soon a pissed off, indignant populace tired of these lawyers who think they are lord and master may use the information with a much more sinister intent.

62. Posted by zackzelmo - 5 days, 10 hours, 59 minutes ago

    Both Jane Harmon and Scalia have the same double standard. It is just fine for the government to collect information on the common citizen. Yet when the same rules are applied to them they scream, snivel, about privacy. When are we going to demand accountability and “zero tolerance” from these annointed “elites.”

63. Posted by GT - 5 days, 9 hours, 53 minutes ago

    @David Narrow:

    “As a strict constructionist, Justice Scalia presumably should not believe that the Constitution creates a right of privacy, which is not explicitly contained therein.”

    Could there be a more explicit way to inform the world about constututional ignorance?

    The Constitution was supposed to furnish an EXHAUSTIVE list of the things in which government COULD interfere. The Bill of Rights was , contrariwise, a NON-exhaustive list of the things in which government could NOT interfere.

    The ABSENCE of a PERMISSION to interfere with our (inherent) right to privacy, is NOT the same as the absence of the right itself.

    If Scalia was actually a strict constructionist (rather than a robed law-whore for the State), then he would permit the government to pass law ONLY if it accorded with the underlying principle of people’s “unalienable rights” - AMONG WHICH are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Note - the very language of the Declaration implies that there are rights IN ADDITION to the three mentioned).

    Knowing what we now know about the degree to which the Federal Government has overstepped its constitutional bounds, any strict constructionist would (like Jefferson) encourage armed resistance against the Federal Government.

    Frankly, I am still waiting to see a sensible theoretical (rather than theological) rebuttal of Spooner’s “The Constitution of No Authority”; if there is some mythical ‘social contrat’, how is it that

    (1) future generations are bound to it without their consent being sought; and
    (2) one party to the contract (the government -representing 50-ish percent of the 70-ish percent who vote) ids permitted to chang the terms at its whim?

    
    I know Yanks require a “Sex in the City” style summation that ends in a question… so here goes:

    Does the government’s arrogation to itself the right to do those two things, stem solely from the fact that it has a bigger set of armed thugs than I have? Can it be as simple as that?

    Are we simply slaves?

64. Posted by GT - 5 days, 9 hours, 45 minutes ago

    Comment removed by moderator.

65. Posted by Professor P - 5 days, 8 hours, 56 minutes ago

    IN my 60 years on this planet, and having read the constitution top to bottom, side to side, front to back more than once in that time, I have yet to encounter the word privacy, even misspelled. Perhaps one of you experts could enlighten me as to exactly how our privacy is a constutional right? Here is a link where you can get started: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

    Thanks in advance,

    Professor P.

    I came here looking for some info for my class, and got some great laughs out of it.

66. Posted by Apostle - 5 days, 8 hours, 13 minutes ago

    The very absence of the word privacy in the Constitution that you speak of is indeed a two edge sword in that the Constitution is an explicit enumeration of the powers delegated to the government while holding the powers of those not enumerated to the people. 

    Since by your own admission there is not a single instance the word is used in the Constitution then it was obviously left out as one of the powers given over to the government to exploit in any manner.

    In other words on the one side the people should expect full protection of their privacy from the government while at the same time the government (or it’s actions and departments) should expect absolutely none.

67. Posted by Apostle - 5 days, 7 hours, 14 minutes ago

    I can see the bill of rights has done it’s unholy work.  The Constitution was an all inclusive document limiting the rights of government while preserving the unlimited rights of the people.

    Then comes along the bill of rights which was not needed and has done more harm to individual liberty than any other document on the face of the earth.

    Leave it to the twisted minds of lawers to now say that the totality of our rights are contained within the bill of rights instead of in the Constitution where they rightfully belong.

68. Posted by Apostle - 5 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes ago

    One last thing. 

    Bill of rights or no bill of rights it is painfully obvious that the government including the judiciary have embarked on a wholesale campaign to totally and forever abolish the aforementioned Constitution in it’s totality. 

    Hence I refer you again to comment# 61

69. Posted by jw - 5 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes ago

    As a public servant, Scalia, is subject to public scrutiny and should give up certain personal information for the job at hand in a free country.  But since this is not truly a free country, I don’t blame Scalia for not wanting share his info, yet when it comes to the people, the government can have unlimited spying powers. George Orwell would be proud of his work if he was alive today.

70. Posted by Apostle - 5 days, 5 hours, 45 minutes ago

    On a more personal note.

    Professor P.

    I would have given you a reciprical link to the first grade class just down the road from my house.

    Unfortunately they have not developed the skills to build a website nor interpret the Constitution.

    I was not aware that level of ignorance could be maintained over the span of sixty years. 

    Until I read you post.

    I guess it’s true.  He who laughs last laughs the hardest.

71. Posted by lerry - 5 days, 4 hours, 11 minutes ago

    OWNED!

72. Posted by John - 5 days, 9 minutes ago

    If Scalia has nothing to HIDE, Scalia has nothing to FEAR.  ROTFLOL.
    Scalia proves again, Judicial Ethics is an OXYMORON

73. Posted by res - 4 days, 23 hours, 5 minutes ago

    Every strict constructionist seems to ignore the Ninth Amendment.  Is it possible to be a strict constructionist and yet to ignore the Ninth Amendment?

74. Posted by The One - 4 days, 16 hours, 20 minutes ago

    This is intersting.  Why didn’t this class also try to collect information on Barack Obama.  Where are his school records?    Ooooops forgot…..that doesn’t fit the narrative of the LEFT and the indoctrination of our universities

75. Posted by conrad carter - 4 days, 15 hours, 57 minutes ago

    Joel now needs to find Obama’s vault birth certificate, college and law school records. I’d bet he can’t do it… wonder why.

76. Posted by Jim S - 4 days, 15 hours, 57 minutes ago

    I have nothing to do with the law and after reading the posts here can understand why there are as many derogatory jokes about the profession. One would expect a site with a preponderance of “educated” people to provide more insight that the daily Kos or Huffington Post, but alas it is not to be. One finds naught but the same partisan politics rather than an honest discussion. How unfortunate that when one visits the site to learn,  with few exceptions,  you get… garbage.

77. Posted by Yolandah - 4 days, 14 hours, 22 minutes ago

    Comment 74 (The One) said it all.  Our dear leader is the least vetted president of all.  I guess liars, err lawyers stick together.

78. Posted by Andythe Lawyer - 3 days, 20 hours, 39 minutes ago

    Answering #74—You’re joking, right?  Nobody has more information collected about them, and pubicized about them, than presidential candidates and presidents.  Admit it—you’re just mad because none of the “He’s a Muslim/Kenyan/Communist/Satan worshipper rumors panned out.  Right?

79. Posted by nate - 3 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes ago

    74/75/77 (obviously all the same person)...  when exactly was it that Obama said that current protections on sensitive information about individuals are sufficient? Actually, perhaps this is a good example of where a justice with a modicum of empathy (OH NOES!) might be valuable.

80. Posted by aka Gregor Samsa - 3 days, 16 hours, 10 minutes ago

    In the meantime, the Federal Trade Commission has delayed enforcement of their Red Flag Rules until August 1, 2009.  These rules were promulgated pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 to address the hot button issue of identity theft. The Red Flag Rules require financial institutions, creditors, and covered accounts have authentication processes in place to prevent (or at least make more difficult) identity theft.  By the way, businesses and professions that provide services and bill later might be covered.  Perhaps private sector lawyers for their legal services.  Does everyone have their authentication procedures in place?  It seems the privacy is never addressed until the hot button is pushed.  To the Castle.

81. Posted by Jennifer - 3 days, 15 hours, 33 minutes ago

    In an age when everyone thinks they’re entitled to know everything, creative safeguards are practically a necessity.  Agree about the sound judgment.  Hysterical the value of the exercise is measured by object and reaction; how much did they pay for that class.

82. Posted by The Skeptical Cynic - 3 days, 12 hours, 50 minutes ago

    Scalia’s is more suited to Italy’s “justice system” under Mussolini whose pomposity, arrogance, hypocrisy, and culturally oafish aristocracy wannabeism Salia so resembles.

83. Posted by aka Gregor Samsa - 2 days, 22 hours, 18 minutes ago

    Yes, I agree with Jennifer.  Creative safeguards are a practical necessity to protect the privacy of private figures.  The FTC’s actions are meant to protect against identity theft.  But should there not be a system in place to prevent the unjustified resale of information on private figures?  Perhaps, the commercial value of the information is sufficient justification for its resale for commercial use.  But, what about its resale or dissemination for non-commercial use?  And, when does one cease to be a private figure?  Scalia willingly became a public figure when he became a federal judge.  It’s difficult to feel any sympathy there.  Joe the Plumber aka Samuel Wurzelbacher became a public figure by posing a political question at a town meeting during a Presidential campaign.  He became a public figure more as a result of the media spot light focusing on him, although he has since embraced his role as a public figure.  Do I become a public figure because I represent a controversial client or take a principled position? Because I give a newspaper interview on a legal / economic matter where I have some insights?  And, then, am I a public figure only on this topic or does my entire life become one of a public figure?  Everyone thinks they are entitled to know everything about everyone else, but are they?  Does the right to privacy only exist as an abstract legal doctrine that is real only for those who can afford the means to enforce it?  The genie is out of the bottle.  Some effort should be made to define the scope, balancing expectations of privacy with justified intrusions and uses of information and to define and create safeguards for a right to privacy to the age of the internet.  (Robert Heinlein foresaw this issue decades before the digital age and the internet.)

84. Posted by ron - 2 days, 19 hours, 21 minutes ago

    if only criminals and others wishing to do us harm showed better judgment then we wouldnt have to worry about our privacy being compromised.

    scalia (like many conservatives) doesnt give a shit about anything until his own ox is getting gored.  he thinks hes a special person and bad things will never happen to him because he keeps his nose clean.  people that have bad things happen to them probably deserved it.

85. Posted by Lawrence - 2 days, 18 hours, 34 minutes ago

    I have to wonder if Scalia’s irritated because he’s now personally involved in an issue which could potentially come before the court.

86. Posted by Dave-o - 2 days, 11 hours, 8 minutes ago

    “if only criminals and others wishing to do us harm showed better judgment then we wouldnt have to worry about our privacy being compromised.”

    Wrong, ron, sorry. Overwhelming harm in terms of loss of privacy and bad data security is at least as likely (and I suspect much *more* likely) to be done by people with no harmful intent whatsoever. Example: zabasearch.com. Another example: the Sony/BMG trojan http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2092 Pouncing on the opportunity to flog some tired sentiment about the badguys and “better judgment” is missing the point.

    Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer; however, I do work at the internets for a living.

87. Posted by wendel - 2 days, 6 hours, 51 minutes ago

    Fat Tony had it coming.

88. Posted by Aquigena - 2 days ago

    Lawrence, yeah.. it sounds to me like when becoming personally involved the reaction is anxiety based rather than paying attention to the point.  It’s egg on his face, through.

89. Posted by Eloise Pitts - 1 day, 20 hours, 13 minutes ago

    Professor Reidenberg & other brilliant lawyer minds,
    My ‘then 19 year-old’ grandson communicated on the internet-without knowledge-to a ‘then 15 year-old girl’, never had sexual contact with her and is now marked as a felon because of a nearly 9-month internet and texting/phone “relationship”. What kind of research could help him? This was in NY. I am open for help-pro-bono. Are there projects to help rectify the scores (perhaps thousands) with the same plight. Transcripts will show that this was a “unique” case. Help!

90. Posted by Sacanagem - 1 day, 16 hours, 40 minutes ago

    As a civilian with no legal training whatsoever, I must say that for a group of presumably working attorneys, your command of basic English grammar and spelling is truly appalling.

    And what R87 said.  He had it coming.

91. Posted by LaborLady - 1 day, 15 hours, 45 minutes ago

    #90 - As a civilian with legal training, what would you know about any of this?

92. Posted by Jennifer - 1 day, 15 hours, 38 minutes ago

    I agree with Samsa.  Valuable discussion, enforcement and revision.

93. Posted by Paul the Magyar - 1 day, 13 hours, 6 minutes ago

    “Posted by There it goes! - 1 week, 2 hours, 34 minutes ago
    The point. See Scalia missing it.”

    Succinct and on point.  Bravo!

94. Posted by Heather A. - Nashville - 22 hours ago

    @ #26 silencedogood - “Are people really that bored that they will troll an ABA blog when not a lawyer?  If so, please seek help.  You REALLY, REALLY need it.”

    There are those of us within (and outside) the legal profession who find issues such as these fascinating.  Sorry to blow your mind (and preconceived notions), but people who have not yet completed a college education are perfectly capable of comprehending an ABA Journal article and commeting on such.

    Interest in privacy concerns and other legal issues is NOT the exclusive province of attorneys.