The path towards clear and convincing digital privacy rights

This study was a legal based inquiry to determine to what extend digital privacy rights are adequately protected by existing law. Because the major statutory vehicle that guides privacy rights in America was passed in 1986, the courts have had to address issues not contemplated by the statute. This study reviews the rulings of all twelve United States Courts of Appeal to determine whether or not digital privacy rights are expanded or limited. Comparisons are made between various circuits and different regions of the country. Three questions are addressed in this study, summarized as; a question about the current status of digital privacy laws; a question about the impact of court decisions on digital privacy rights; and a question and assessment about the adequacy of digital privacy laws. Also, recommendations are suggested for how digital privacy rights can be enhanced in the future. These recommendations would first change the standard needed to issue warrants and to access an individuals’ digital privacy rights to a “clear and convincing” analysis and standard. Secondly, the author recommends that digital privacy rights should become analogous to intellectual property rights and should have the same level of protection afforded intellectual property rights. Although digital privacy is not yet firmly recognized as more akin to Intellectual Property deserving of heightened protection, this study recommends that digital privacy, along with trade secret, copyright and patents, and trademark law should all be considered a type of intellectual capital that needs to be protected from those not authorized to access or utilize that intellectual property

Re-thinking the regulatory environment of credit reporting: Could legislation stem privacy and discrimination concerns?

This paper examines the activities carried out in the UK by Credit Reference Agencies, current business practices, and the legal standing of credit reporting. It suggests areas and issues for further legal debate and policy consideration. Ultimately, this study puts forward the case for specific legislative intervention to strike a balance between privacy rights, discrimination concerns, and the needs of the credit industry

An Unreasonable Online Search: How a Sheriffs Webcams Strengthened Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights of Pretrial Detainees

This Note will discuss how courts approach pretrial detainees\u27 claims of punishment, exploring both Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims and privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. It will go on to discuss Demery\u27s implications for Fourth Amendment privacy rights of pretrial detainees. Part I explores the protections pretrial detainees are afforded under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Part l.A discusses the general differences between pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners. Part I.B considers two Supreme Court cases - Bell v. Wolfish and Block v. Rutherford - that address the standards used in evaluating punishment claims in a pretrial detention context under the Due Process Clause. Part I.C explores the Fourth Amendment and privacy rights in general. This section also discusses the level of protection prisoners and pretrial detainees are afforded under the Fourth Amendment after Hudson v. Palmer. This Note considers the interactions between these lines of cases in order to clarify the actual scope of privacy rights retained by pretrial detainees. Part II of the Note will examine the factual history and majority and minority opinions in Demery. Finally, Part III will discuss the impact Demery may have on pretrial detainees\u27 privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment

The U.S. Postal Service War on Private Mailboxes and Privacy Rights

On March 25, 1999, neatly concealed in an obscure and seemingly minor "Procedure Revision," the U.S. Postal Service announced its intent to execute Postal Bulletin 21994. In an alleged attempt to combat mail fraud, the Postal Service required that by June 24, 1999, all commercial mail-receiving agencies (CMRAs) that offer rental of private mailboxes should have collected from their customers confidential information that the Postal Service itself is not allowed to collect. Furthermore, starting as early as October 24, 1999, the USPS will deliver mail only to the private boxes addressed in a particular format that will be unfamiliar to many senders. Those new requirements violate the privacy regulations that cover the Postal Service. The USPS plans to make available to the public confidential information about any private box holder who uses the box for business with the public. However, access to such information could actually facilitate criminal activity. Moreover, the Postal Service also plans to apply these new regulations to executive suites.In addition, because it is impossible for box holders to know everyone who might have their private box address on file, many otherwise deliverable pieces of mail will be returned to the sender, marked "address unknown." Finally, the new regulations will foist enormous costs on some 1.5 million to 2.5 million private mailbox holders, which include many of the country's smallest businesses. CMRAs will also incur expenses, not only of compliance with and notification to box holders of the new regulations but also of lost business. A conservative estimate of the direct costs alone of the new regulations could approach $1 billion