THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN AN ERA OF UBIQUITOUS …

1

FILE:C:\ Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:49PM

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN AN ERA OF UBIQUITOUS TECHNOLOGY

Susan W. Brenner*

I. PRIVACY We must think through the way technology changes what is

private, and develop new concepts of reasonable privacy that preserve liberty and are workable in a networked world.1

The pre-eminent guarantee of personal privacy for those of us in the United States is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As most everyone knows, the Fourth Amendment protects us from Aunreasonable@ searches and seizures. Searches infringe upon privacy; seizures impact on other interests, notably the interest in the possession and use of property.2

N C R D i s t i n g u i s h e d P r o f e s s o r o f L a w a n d T e c h n o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f D a y t o n S c h o o l o f L a w . 1 E l o n U n i v e r s i t y / P e w I n t e r n e t & A m e r i c a n L i f e P r o j e c t , I m a g i n i n g t h e I n t e r n e t : P r e d i c t i o n s D a t a b a s e , F a l l 2 0 0 4 a t h t t p : / / w w w . e l o n . e d u / p r e d i c t i o n s / q 1 2 . a s p x ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 2 0 0 5 ) . I n 2 0 0 4 , t h e P e w I n t e r n e t & A m e r i c a n L i f e P r o j e c t s u r v e y e d A1 , 2 8 6 n e t w o r k - t e c h n o l o g y s t a k e h o l d e r s @ t o e l i c i t t h e i r v i e w s a s t o h o w t h e I n t e r n e t Aw i l l c h a n g e o u r l i v e s b e t w e e n 2 0 0 4 a n d 2 0 1 4 . @ I d . T h e c o m m e n t q u o t e d i n t h e t e x t a b o v e w a s o n e r e s p o n d e n t ' s r e a c t i o n t o t h i s q u e s t i o n :

A s c o m p u t i n g d e v i c e s b e c o m e e m b e d d e d i n e v e r y t h i n g f r o m c l o t h e s t o a p p l i a n c e s t o c a r s t o p h o n e s , t h e s e n e t w o r k e d d e v i c e s w i l l a l l o w g r e a t e r s u r v e i l l a n c e b y g o v e r n m e n t s a n d b u s i n e s s e s . B y 2 0 1 4 , t h e r e w i l l b e i n -c r e a s i n g n u m b e r s o f a r r e s t s b a s e d o n t h i s k i n d o f s u r v e i l l a n c e b y d e m o c r a t i c g o v e r n m e n t s a s w e l l a s b y a u t h o r i t a r i a n r e g i m e s .

I d . 2 S e e , e . g . , U n i t e d S t a t e s v . K a r o , 4 6 8 U . S . 7 0 5 , 7 2 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( S t e v e n s , J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t ) .

F I L E : C : \ B R E N N E R . D T P D e c 1 2 / 1 3 / 0 5 T u e

1 2 : 4 9 P M 2 M I S S I S S I P P I L A W J O U R N A L [ V o l . 7 5

Privacy evolved as a Abricks and mortar@ concept.3 When the Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution, the real-world was the only world; technology had not yet given us the ability to transcend the strictures of the real-world in various ways.4 We now have that ability: We can substitute the virtual realities provided by computer technology for the physical world; we can communicate with almost anyone from almost anywhere; and we use technologies to make our lives easier, to earn our living and to amuse us. Technology is not a new phenomenon; ancient inventors produced complex mechanisms and understood a great deal about the physical forces underlying modern technology.5 What is new is the way we approach technology: Ancient in-ventions were regarded as curiosities and often remained little more than toys;6 this tendency to ignore or resist new technol-ogies, which was the product of various social and cultural forces, persisted for centuries.7 The resistance began to decline 3 T h e p h r a s e Ab r i c k s - a n d - m o r t a r @ A[ d ] e s c r i b e s a s i t e t h a t h a s a p h y s i c a l p r e s -e n c e i n t h e r e a l w o r l d ( a s o p p o s e d t o a v i r t u a l p r e s e n c e i n t h e o n l i n e w o r l d ) @. W o r d S p y , D e f i n i t i o n o f b r i c k s - a n d - m o r t a r , a t h t t p : / / w w w . w o r d s p y . c o m / w o r d s / b r i c k s - a n d - m o r t a r . a s p ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 2 0 0 5 ) . 4 N B . L A S S O N , T H E H I S T O R Y A N D D E V E L O P M E N T O F T H E F O U R T H A M E N D M E N T T O

T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O N S T I T U T I O N 7 9 - 1 0 5 ( 1 9 3 7 ) . 5 S e e , e . g . , T h e A n t i k y t h e r a M e c h a n i s m : T h e C l o c k w o r k C o m p u t e r , T H E E C O N -O M I S T ( S e p t . 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 ) , a t h t t p : / / w w w . e c o n o m i s t . c o m / d i s p l a y s t o r y . c f m ? s t o r y _ i d = 1 3 3 7 1 6 5 ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 2 0 0 5 ) ; A n c i e n t G r e e k S c i e n t i s t s : H e r o o f A l e x a n d r i a , T e c h n o l o g y M u s e u m o f T h e s s a l o n i k i , a t h t t p : / / w w w . t m t h . e d u . g r / e n / a e t / 5 / 5 5 . h t m l ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 2 0 0 5 ) ( h e r o i n v e n t e d t h e s t e a m e n g i n e , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , i n t h e f i r s t c e n t u r y B . C . ) ; s e e a l s o R U D I V O L T I , S O C I E T Y A N D T E C H N O L O G I C A L C H A N G E 3 5 -4 4 , 5 4 - 5 6 ( 4 t h e d . 2 0 0 1 ) . 6 S e e , e . g . , A . W O L F , A H I S T O R Y O F S C I E N C E , T E C H N O L O G Y A N D P H I L O S O P H Y I N T H E

1 6 T H A N D 1 7 T H C E N T U R I E S 5 4 3 ( 1 9 3 5 ) ; s e e a l s o W I L L I A M F I E L D I N G O G B U R N , T E C H N O L I G I C A L T R E N D S A N D N A T I O N A L P O L I C Y , I N C L U D I N G T H E S O C I A L I M P L I C A T I O N S O F N E W

I N V E N T I O N S 5 1 ( 1 9 3 7 ) . 7 S e e , e . g . , O G B U R N , s u p r a n o t e 6 , a t 6 6 ( Ar e s i s t a n c e t o t e c h n o l o g i c a l c h a n g e h a s b e e n s o m u c h a p a r t o f t h e t e x t u r e o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l p r o c e s s , t h a t i t c a n n o t b e i g -n o r e d w h e n t h e f u t u r e o f t e c h n o l o g y i s c h a r t e d @) . S e e i d . a t 3 9 - 6 6 ( d e s c r i b i n g h i s -t o r i c a l r e s i s t a n c e t o d i f f e r e n t t e c h n o l o g i e s ) .

FILE:C:\BRENNER.DTP Dec 12/13/05 Tue 12:49PM 2005] UBIQUITOUS TECHNOLOGY 3

in the nineteenth century because of the implementation of technologiesCincluding the telegraph, electricity, the tele-phone, and the automobileCthat would proliferate and perme-ate the fabric of society.8 The success of these and subsequent technologies produced a cultural climate which embraced new technology.9 Our receptivity to technology accelerates the pro-cesses of invention and implementation which, in turn, influ-ence how we live; we move further and further away from the Abricks and mortar@ reality that produced the Fourth Amend-ment.10 And that brings us to the question at hand: Can the Fourth Amendment's privacy guarantees be adapted to deal with a world in which technology is increasingly pervasiveCa world of ubiquitous technology?11 8 B u t s e e i d . a t 4 3 - 4 5 , 4 9 - 5 1 a n d 5 3 ( e a r l y r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e s e t e c h n o l o g i e s ) . 9 S e e , e . g . , S T E V E N J O H N S O N , I N T E R F A C E C U L T U R E : H O W N E W T E C H N O L O G Y

T R A N S F O R M S T H E W A Y W E C R E A T E A N D C O M M U N I C A T E 1 - 1 0 ( 1 s t e d . 1 9 9 7 ) ; s e e a l s o V O L T I , s u p r a n o t e 5 , a t 3 5 - 5 3 , 2 6 6 - 6 8 . 1 0 S e e S e c t i o n I . A . , i n f r a . 1 1 T h e p h r a s e s Au b i q u i t o u s t e c h n o l o g y @ a n d Au b i q u i t o u s c o m p u t i n g @ a r e u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y t o r e f e r t o t e c h n o l o g i e s t h a t a r e w o v e n i n t o t h e f a b r i c o f e v e r y d a y l i f e . S e e , e . g . , N i a l l W i n t e r s , P e r s o n a l P r i v a c y a n d P o p u l a r U b i q u i t o u s T e c h n o l o g y , U b i C o n f 2 0 0 4 , a t h t t p : / / w w w . u c l i c . u c l . a c . u k / p r o j e c t s / u b i c o n f / m a t e r i a l s / P a p e r s / N i a l l % 2 0 W i n t e r s . p d f . ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 2 0 0 5 ) . J o h n B l a u n o t e s :

U b i q u i t o u s c o m p u t i n g i n v o l v e s h a v i n g c o m p u t i n g d e v i c e s e s s e n t i a l l y e v e r y -w h e r e i n t h e h o m e , o f f i c e o r p u b l i c a r e a , a s w e l l a s e a s y , n a t u r a l w a y s f o r p e o p l e t o i n t e r a c t w i t h t h e m . W i r e l e s s t e c h n o l o g i e s , s e n s o r s , r a d i o f r e q u e n c y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ( R F I D ) t a g s a n d m a c h i n e - t o - m a c h i n e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i l l p l a y a b i g r o l e i n t h i s n e w a r e a o f c o m p u t i n g .

J o h n B l a u , G e r m a n G r o u p S t u d i e s U b i q u i t o u s C o m p u t i n g , D a t a P r i v a c y , N e t w o r k W o r l d , D e c . 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , a t h t t p : / / w w w . n w f u s i o n . c o m / n e w s / 2 0 0 4 / 1 2 2 2 g e r m a g r o u p . h t m l ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h i s a r t i c l e f o c u s e s o n Ac o m m u n i c a t i v e @ t e c h n o l o g i e s i n s t e a d o f , s a y , i n d u s t r i a l o r a g r i c u l t u r a l t e c h n o l o g i e s . I t s c o n c e r n i s w i t h t e c h n o l o g i e s t h a t c a n b e u s e d t o g e n e r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n , c o l l e c t i n f o r m a t i o n a n d / o r s h a r e i n f o r m a t i o n . S e e S e c t i o n I I . , i n f r a . T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t i s , o f c o u r s e , c o n c e r n e d w i t h c h a n n e l i n g h o w l a w e n f o r c e m e n t f i n d s , t h r o u g h s e a r c h e s , a n d o b t a i n s , t h r o u g h s e i z u r e s , v a r i e t i e s o f



To answer that question, we must do several things: The first is to identify the basic conceptions of privacy which exist-ed in Twentieth Century American law: the Fourth Amend-ment standard and a tort standard derived from the work of Louis Brandeis and Charles Warren. The two sections immedi-ately below undertake this analysis,12 the purpose of which is to provide a benchmarkCto let us understand how our ap-proach to privacy evolved to accommodate technologies. The next step is to adapt that approach to accommodate Twenty-first century technologies. Section II of the article reviews existing and projected technologies and explains why the ap-proach which evolved is inadequate. Section III considers how we can adapt our approach to deal with the era of ubiquitous technology. Finally, Section IV offers a brief conclusion.

A. Fourth Amendment The . . . constitutional prohibition against unreasonable

searches and seizures, has its source in that principle of the common law which finds expression in the maxim that `every man's house is his castle.' English history discloses [that the] . . . constitutional provi-sions . . . had their origin `in the . . . unwarrantable intrusion of executive agents into the houses . . . of individuals . . . .''13

The Fourth Amendment is predicated on a spatial concep-tion of privacy.14 It is intended to protect the sanctity of pri-

i n f o r m a t i o n . S e e S e c t i o n I . A . , i n f r a . 1 2 S e e i n f r a '' I ( A ) a n d I ( B ) , 1 3 U n i t e d S t a t e s v . T h r e e T o n s o f C o a l , 2 8 F . C a s . 1 4 9 , 1 5 1 ( E . D . W i s . 1 8 7 5 ) . E n g l i s h l a w , o f c o u r s e , w a s n o t a l o n e i n p r o v i d i n g s p e c i a l p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e h o m e . S e e L A S S O N , s u p r a n o t e 4 , a t 1 3 - 2 0 . 1 4 S e e O l m s t e a d v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 7 7 U . S . 4 3 8 , 4 6 3 ( 1 9 2 8 ) ( AT h e w e l l - k n o w n h i s t o r i c a l p u r p o s e o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t . . . w a s t o p r e v e n t t h e u s e o f g o v e r n m e n t a l f o r c e t o s e a r c h a m a n ' s h o u s e , h i s p e r s o n , h i s p a p e r s , a n d h i s e f -f e c t s . @) .


vate property from intrusions by public officials15 which de-rives from English common law. Early common law punished Athose who invaded a neighbor's premises.@16 In fact, by the Twelfth-century, house-breaking had become one of the Amore serious crimes in medi-eval England@ and by the Sixteenth-century English law had developed specific prohibitions against housebreaking, bur-glary and trespass.17 These laws were only concerned with trespasses by private persons because official searches were almost unheard of until the Fifteenth century.18 In the latter half of the Fifteenth century, however, the King and Parlia-ment began authorizing trade guilds to Aenter and search the workmanship of all manner of persons@ to enforce guild regu-lations.19 Roughly a century later, the Court of the Star Cham-ber, charged with licensing books and regulating printing Ade-creed that the wardens of the Stationers' Company . . . should have authority to open all packs and trunks of papers and books brought into the country, to search in any warehouse, shop, or any other place where they suspected a violation of the laws of printing to be taking place [and] to seize the books printed contrary to [email protected] Other courts followed suit, issuing edicts authorizing similar searches directed at those suspected

1 5 S e e B o y d v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1 1 6 U . S . 6 1 6 , 6 2 7 ( 1 8 8 6 ) . 1 6 S e e W i l l i a m J . C u d d i h y , T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t : O r i g i n s a n d O r i g i n a l M e a n i n g 3 2 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( u n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , C l a r e m o n t G r a d u a t e S c h o o l ) ( o n f i l e w i t h a u t h o r ) . 1 7 I d . a t 3 1 - 3 5 . 1 8 I d . a t 3 6 , 7 5 . A l a w e n a c t e d i n 1 3 3 5 r e q u i r e d i n n k e e p e r s n e a r p o r t s t o s e a r c h g u e s t s f o r c o u n t e r f e i t m o n e y ; t h e i n n k e e p e r s k e p t a p o r t i o n o f w h a t -e v e r t h e y f o u n d a n d t u r n e d t h e r e s t o v e r t o Ao f f i c i a l s e a r c h e r s @ w h o t o o k t h e r e s t a n d m o n i t o r e d t h e i n n k e e p e r s ' d i s c h a r g e o f t h i s o b l i g a t i o n . S e e L A S S O N , s u p r a n o t e 4 , a t 2 3 . 1 9 S e e L A S S O N , s u p r a n o t e 4 , a t 2 4 . 2 0 I d . a t 2 5 . T h e S t a t i o n e r s ' C o m p a n y w a s a g u i l d o f p r i n t e r s c h a r g e d w i t h e n f o r c i n g t h e S t a r C h a m b e r ' s r e s t r i c t i o n s o n p r i n t i n g . S e e , e . g . , T E L F O R D T A Y L O R , T W O S T U D I E S I N C O N S T I T U T I O N A L I N T E R P R E T A T I O N 2 5 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .



of libel, heresy and political dissent.21 This led to the evolution of the general warrant, which was issued with no proof of individualized suspicion and in which no Anames are speci-fied . . . and . . . a discretionary power given to messengers to search wherever their suspicions may chance to fall.@22 As arbi-trary searches became more common, AEnglishmen began to insist that their houses were castles for the paradoxical reason that the castle-like security that those houses had afforded from intrusion was vanishing.@23 In several decisions issued in the mid-eighteenth century, English courts held that homes were protected from arbitrary action by government officials.24 Most of these decisions grew out of an investigation into seditious libel: Ordered to find the author of a recently-published letter, officers acting under the authority of a general warrant searched five houses and made a number of arrests.25 Those persons whose homes were searched sued the officers who conducted the searches for trespass, and the government Aundertook the responsibility of defending all actions arising from the warrant and the pay-ment of all judgments.@26 To the delight of the British public,

2 1 S e e L A S S O N , s u p r a n o t e 4 , a t 2 5 - 2 7 .

N o l i m i t a t i o n s s e e m t o h a v e b e e n o b s e r v e d i n g i v i n g m e s s e n g e r s p o w e r s o f s e a r c h a n d a r r e s t i n f e r r e t i n g o u t o f f e n d e r s a n d e v i d e n c e . P e r s o n s a n d p l a c -e s w e r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s p e c i f i e d , s e i z u r e o f p a p e r s a n d e f f e c t s w a s i n d i s -c r i m i n a t e , e v e r y t h i n g w a s l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e b e a r e r o f t h e w a r r a n t .

I d . a t 2 6 ; s e e a l s o C u d d i h y , s u p r a n o t e 1 6 , a t 1 0 0 - 1 9 . 2 2 L A S S O N , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 4 5 ( q u o t i n g W i l k e s v . W o o d , 9 8 E n g . R e p . 4 8 9 ( C . D . 1 7 6 3 ) ) . 2 3 C u d d i h y , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 2 8 ; s e e a l s o L A S S O N , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 3 0 - 4 5 . 2 4 S e e M o n e y v . L e a c h , 9 7 E n g . R e p . 1 0 5 0 ( K . B . 1 7 6 5 ) ; E n t i c k v . C a r r i n g t o n , 9 5 E n g . R e p . 8 0 7 ( K . B . 1 7 6 5 ) ; W i l k e s , 9 8 E n g . R e p . a t 4 8 9 ; H u c k l e v . M o n e y , 9 5 E n g . R e p . 7 6 8 ( K . B . 1 7 6 3 ) . 2 5 S e e C u d d i h y , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 8 8 6 - 9 4 ; s e e a l s o L A S S O N , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 4 3 - 4 5 . 2 6 L A S S O N , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 4 5 .


the plaintiffs won, and their verdicts were upheld on appeal.27 Encouraged by their success, John Entick, the victim of a similar search, sued the officers who searched his home for trespass and won a verdict of ,300.28 The Court of Common Pleas upheld his verdict:

[ O ] u r l a w h o l d s t h e p r o p e r t y o f e v e r y m a n s o s a c r e d t h a t n o m a n c a n s e t h i s f o o t u p o n h i s n e i g h b o u r ' s c l o s e w i t h o u t h i s l e a v e . [ I f ] h e d o e s , h e i s a t r e s p a s s e r . . . . T h e d e f e n d a n t s h a v e n o r i g h t t o a v a i l t h e m s e l v e s o f t h e u s a g e o f t h e s e w a r -r a n t s . . . . [ W ] e c a n s a f e l y s a y t h e r e i s n o l a w i n t h i s c o u n t r y t o j u s t i f y t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n w h a t t h e y h a v e d o n e ; i f t h e r e w a s , i t w o u l d d e s t r o y a l l t h e c o m f o r t s o f s o c i e t y .

The effect of these decisions was to apply the same standard to public and private actors: In either instance, a trespasser could be held civilly liable for entering another's property Awithout lawful [email protected] The primary difference was that a public actor could rely upon a warrant, as well as upon a property owner's consent, as authorization for an entry.31 2 7 I d . a t 4 4 - 4 6 . 2 8 I d . a t 4 7 ; s e e a l s o E n t i c k , 9 5 E n g . R e p . a t 8 0 8 :

T h e p l a i n t i f f . . . d e c l a r e [ d ] t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s [ N a t h a n C a r r i n g t o n a n d t h r e e o t h e r s , m e s s e n g e r s i n o r d i n a r y t o t h e K i n g ] w i t h f o r c e a n d a r m s b r o k e a n d e n t e r e d h i s d w e l l i n g - h o u s e . . . , c o n t i n u e d t h e r e f o u r h o u r s w i t h o u t h i s c o n s e n t a n d a g a i n s t h i s w i l l , a l l t h a t t i m e d i s t u r b e d h i m i n t h e p e a c e a b l e p o s s e s s i o n t h e r e o f , b r o k e o p e n t h e d o o r s t o t h e r o o m s , a n d t h e l o c k s , . . . b r o k e o p e n t h e b o x e s , c h e s t s , d r a w e r s , e t c . , o f t h e p l a i n t i f f i n h i s h o u s e , . . . s e a r c h e d a n d e x a m i n e d a l l t h e r o o m s . . . i n h i s d w e l l i n g . . . a n d a l l t h e b o x e s . . . ; r e a d o v e r , p r i e d i n t o , a n d e x a m i n e d a l l t h e p r i v a t e p a p e r s . . . o f t h e p l a i n t i f f t h e r e f o u n d , w h e r e b y t h e s e c r e t a f f a i r s , e t c . , o f t h e p l a i n t i f f b e c a m e w r o n g f u l l y d i s c o v e r e d a n d m a d e p u b l i c . . . t o t h e d a m a g e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , 2 , 0 0 0 p o u n d s .

I d . 2 9 E n t i c k , 9 5 E n g . R e p . a t 8 1 8 . 3 0 W I L L I A M B L A C K S T O N E , I I I , C O M M E N T A R I E S O N T H E L A W S O F E N G L A N D 2 0 9 ( 1 8 7 0 ) . 3 1 A s o n e s c h o l a r n o t e d , a w a r r a n t Aw o u l d a c t a s a s o r t o f d e c l a r a t o r y



During this era, American colonists were waging their own war against writs of assistance, a variant of the general warrant.32 Although their legal challenge to the writs failed,33 the resentment generated was a driving factor for the Revolution and, later, in the adoption of the Bill of Rights.34 The Fourth Amendment was therefore a product of the same concerns that resulted in the law of trespass' being applied to public actors: Ato guard individuals against improper intrusion into their buildings where they had the exclusive right of [email protected] It was intended to secure spatial privacyCto restrict law enforcement's ability to break down doors and rummage through rooms, boxes, chests, drawers, etc.36 Like its English analogue, the Fourth Amendment was intended to preserve privacy by discouraging law enforcement trespasses,37 and that conception of privacy prevailed unchallenged until the second decade of the Twentieth century when the Supreme Court heard its first wiretap case. There were only a few Fourth Amendment cases in the Nine-

j u d g m e n t . . . . A l a w f u l w a r r a n t . . . w o u l d c o m p e l a . . . d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t g o v e r n m e n t o f f i c i a l i n a n y s u b s e q u e n t l a w s u i t f o r d a m a g e s . @ A k h i l R e e d A m a r , T h e B i l l o f R i g h t s A s A C o n s t i t u t i o n , 1 0 0 Y A L E L . J . 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 7 8 - 7 9 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; s e e a l s o P a t c h e r v . S p r a g u e , 1 8 0 7 W L 9 3 1 ( N . Y . 1 8 0 7 ) ( v a l i d w a r r a n t i s a d e f e n s e t o a n a c t i o n f o r t r e s p a s s ) . 3 2 S e e L A S S O N , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 5 3 ( w i t h a w r i t o f a s s i s t a n c e o n e c o u l d As e a r c h a n y h o u s e , s h o p , w a r e h o u s e , e t c . ; b r e a k o p e n d o o r s , c h e s t s , p a c k a g e s . . . a n d r e m o v e a n y p r o h i b i t e d o r u n c u s t o m e d g o o d s o r m e r c h a n d i s e @) . 3 3 I d . a t 5 1 - 6 1 . 3 4 I d . a t 7 9 - 8 2 ; s e e a l s o M a r s h a l l v . B a r l o w ' s , I n c . , 4 3 6 U . S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . 3 5 J o n e s v . G i b s o n , 1 8 1 8 W L 4 8 8 * 5 ( N . H . 1 8 1 8 ) . 3 6 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 3 7 S e e , e . g . , H u m e s v . T a b e r , 1 8 5 0 W L 1 8 2 3 * 6 ( R . I . 1 8 5 0 ) ( w a r r a n t n o d e f e n s e t o a n a c t i o n i n t r e s p a s s a g a i n s t a s h e r i f f w h o s e a r c h e d t h e w r o n g h o u s e ) ; J o n e s , 1 8 1 8 W L a t * 5 ( a c t i o n i n t r e s p a s s a g a i n s t a n Ai n s p e c t o r o f r e v e n u e @ f o r s e i z i n g g o o d s w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t ) ; P a t c h e r v . S p r a g u e , 1 8 0 7 W L 9 3 1 ( N . Y . 1 8 0 7 ) ( v a l i d w a r r a n t i s a d e f e n s e t o a n a c t i o n f o r t r e s p a s s ) .


teenth century and perhaps the best known is Boyd v. United States. Boyd involved the Acompulsory production of a man's private papers,@ which the Court found to be the Aequivalent@ of a search and seizure.38 The Court struck down the practice in an opinion which cited Entick and seemed to fuse the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination with the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against Aunreasonable search-es and seizures.@39 The opinion quotes Entick extensively for the proposition that an unauthorized violation one's Apapers@ is a trespass.40 The focus was on spatial privacyCon the government's Agoing@ or Aseeing@ something it should notCeven though the Aintrusion@ was accomplished indirectly.41 3 8 B o y d , 1 1 6 U . S . a t 6 2 2 . A c o u r t o r d e r w a s u s e d t o r e q u i r e At h e c l a i m a n t s @ i n t h e c a s e t o s u r r e n d e r a n i n v o i c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e p u r c h a s e o f 2 9 c a s e s o f p l a t e g l a s s . I d . a t 6 1 7 - 1 8 . O r d e r i s s u e d a s p a r t o f a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o w h e t h e r At h e c l a i m a n t s @ h a d u n l a w f u l l y a v o i d e d p a y i n g d u t i e s o n t h e g l a s s . I d . 3 9 I d . a t 6 3 2 - 3 5 . 4 0 I d . a t 6 2 6 - 3 0 . 4 1 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t c i t e d B o y d ' s F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t - F i f t h A m e n d m e n t f u s i o n a n a l y s i s i n s e v e r a l c a s e s , n o n e o f w h i c h i n v o l v e d t h e t r a d i t i o n a l F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t s c e n a r i o i n w h i c h t h e g o v e r n m e n t s e a r c h e s f o r a n d s e i z e s e v i d e n c e . S e e B r a m v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1 6 8 U . S . 5 3 2 , 5 4 4 ( 1 8 9 7 ) ( c o e r c e d c o n f e s s i o n c a s e ) ; S t o n e v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1 6 7 U . S . 1 7 8 , 1 8 8 ( 1 8 9 7 ) ( a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r d a m a g e s f o r t r e e s u n l a w f u l l y c u t o n f e d e r a l l y - o w n e d l a n d ) ; B r o w n v . W a l k e r , 1 6 1 U . S . 5 9 1 , 6 3 5 - 3 6 ( 1 8 9 6 ) ( g r a n d j u r y w i t n e s s ' a p p e a l o f c o n t e m p t c i t a t i o n f o r r e f u s i n g t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s p u t t o h i m ) ; C o u n s e l m a n v . H i t c h c o c k , 1 4 2 U . S . 5 4 7 , 5 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 8 9 2 ) ( g r a n d j u r y w i t n e s s ' a p p e a l o f c o n t e m p t c i t a t i o n f o r r e f u s i n g t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s p u t t o h i m ) , o v e r r u l e d i n p a r t b y K a s t i g a r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 4 0 6 U . S . 4 4 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . S e e g e n e r a l l y U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Z u c k e r , 1 6 1 U . S . 4 7 5 , 4 7 8 ( 1 8 9 6 ) . M a n y o f t h e s e c a s e s , a l o n g w i t h s o m e l o w e r f e d e r a l c o u r t d e c i s i o n s f r o m t h i s e r a , i n v o l v e d c o m p e l l i n g t e s t i m o n y f r o m w i t n e s s e s . S e e , e . g . , I n r e J e f f e r s o n , 9 6 F . 8 2 6 , 8 2 8 ( D . W a s h . 1 8 9 9 ) ( c o m p e l l i n g w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t h e r h u s b a n d w o u l d v i o l a t e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t ) . D a v i d S t e i n b u r g w r i t e s :

F e d e r a l i s m m a y i n p a r t e x p l a i n t h e l a c k o f e a r l y d e c i s i o n s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t . I n t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h e B i l l o f R i g h t s - i n c l u d i n g t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t - o n l y a p p l i e d t o t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t . D u r i n g t h i s s a m e t i m e p e r i o d , m o s t c r i m i n a l l a w s w e r e e n a c t e d b y t h e s t a t e s , n o t t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t . C r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s a l m o s t


1 2 : 4 9 P M 1 0 M I S S I S S I P P I L A W J O U R N A L [ V o l . 7 5

1. Letters

The most relevant Nineteenth-century Supreme Court decision is Ex parte Jackson,42 which was an appeal from a conviction for sending Aa circular concerning a lottery@ through the U.S. Mail.43 In Jackson, the Court held that Congress had the power to prohibit mail from being used to deliver certain types of material as long as the restrictions were enforced in accordance with rights of:

f a r g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e t h a n t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f t h e m a i l . . . . [ A ] d i s t i n c t i o n i s t o b e m a d e b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f m a i l m a t t e r , C b e t w e e n w h a t i s i n t e n d e d t o b e k e p t f r e e f r o m i n s p e c t i o n , s u c h a s l e t t e r s , a n d s e a l e d p a c k a g e s s u b j e c t t o l e t t e r p o s t a g e ; a n d w h a t i s o p e n t o i n s p e c t i o n , s u c h a s n e w s p a p e r s , m a g a z i n e s , . . . a n d o t h e r p r i n t e d m a t t e r , p u r p o s e l y l e f t i n a c o n d i t i o n t o b e e x a m i n e d . L e t t e r s a n d s e a l e d p a c k a g e s . . . a r e a s f u l l y g u a r d e d f r o m e x a m i n a t i o n a n d i n s p e c t i o n , e x c e p t a s t o t h e i r o u t w a r d f o r m a n d w e i g h t , a s i f t h e y w e r e r e t a i n e d b y t h e p a r t i e s f o r -w a r d i n g t h e m i n t h e i r o w n d o m i c i l e s . T h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t y o f t h e r i g h t o f t h e p e o p l e t o b e s e c u r e i n t h e i r p a p e r s a g a i n s t u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s e x t e n d s t o t h e i r p a p e r s , t h u s c l o s e d a g a i n s t i n s p e c t i o n , w h e r e v e r t h e y m a y b e . W h i l s t i n t h e m a i l , t h e y c a n o n l y b e o p e n e d a n d e x a m i n e d u n d e r l i k e w a r r a n t , i s s u e d u p o n . . . o a t h o r a f -f i r m a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b i n g t h e t h i n g t o b e s e i z e d , a s i s r e q u i r e d w h e n p a p e r s a r e s u b j e c t e d t o s e a r c h i n o n e ' s o w n h o u s e h o l d . . . . [ A ] l l r e g u l a t i o n s a d o p t e d a s t o m a i l m a t t e r . . . m u s t b e i n s u b o r d i n a t i o n t o t h e g r e a t p r i n c i p l e

a l w a y s t o o k p l a c e i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t s , w h e r e t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t d i d n o t a p p l y .

D a v i d E . S t e i n b e r g , T h e O r i g i n a l U n d e r s t a n d i n g o f U n r e a s o n a b l e S e a r c h e s a n d S e i z u r e s , 5 6 F L A . L . R E V . 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 7 2 - 7 3 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) ; s e e , e . g . , M i l l e r v . T e x a s , 1 5 3 U . S . 5 3 5 , 5 3 8 ( 1 8 9 4 ) . 4 2 9 6 U . S . 7 2 7 ( 1 8 7 7 ) . 4 3 I d .


e m b o d i e d i n t h e f o u r t h a m e n d m e n t o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . 4 4

To the modern eye, Jackson seems to extract a concept of Aportable privacy@ from the notion of spatial privacy upon which the Fourth Amendment was predicated. Sealed letters and packages carry with them the privacy accorded the premises from which they originated; violating that privacy is a trespass which must be authorized by a warrant.45 This appears to extend the original Fourth Amendment understanding of priva-cy as Aprivacy of place,@ to transcend the bricks-and-mortar approach meant to limit law enforcement intrusions into Apri-vate@ physical spaces. To us, Jackson seems to anticipate Katz,46 the Twentieth-century decision in which the Court ex-panded the Fourth Amendment to privacy beyond Aspace.@47 It is doubtful that the Jackson Court viewed its holding in that light. It is more probable that the Court simply believed it was extending spatial privacy to Apapers@ which were in transit from one person to anotherCthat were moving from one Aprivate@ space to another. Viewed in this light, the decision is but an application of the concern with spatial privacy and with the confidentiality of private Apapers@ that appears in Entick and the other English trespass decisions.48 This interpretation is also supported by Boyd's concern with non-traditional trespass into the privacy of one's Apapers.@49 But certain aspects of Jackson are still relevant to this discussion. For one thing, while Jackson did not specifically involve technology, it did provide the factual predicate for the holding. The colonial era postal service was ad hoc, notoriously 4 4 I d . a t 7 2 8 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . 4 5 S e e s u p r a n o t e s 3 7 , 4 4 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 4 6 3 8 9 U . S . 3 4 7 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . 4 7 K a t z i s d i s c u s s e d i n f r a . S e e i n f r a n o t e s 1 1 7 - 1 2 7 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 4 8 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 4 9 S e e s u p r a n o t e s E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . - E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t .



unreliable and offered no guarantees that what was sent would not be read by government authorities, postal employees or anyone who happened to have access.50 The situation did not seem to improve much after the Revolution, with the establish-ment of a formal postal service.51 In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, soon-to-be President George Washington observed that sending a letter through the post office meant that his words Ashould become known to all the world.@52 By the nineteenth century, postal employees were at least trying to maintain the Asecrecy@ of communications sent through the mail.53 Interestingly, as Smith notes:

[ t h e ] g r e a t e s t p r o t e c t i o n f o r p o s t a l s e c r e c y c a m e n o t f r o m a l a w o r r e g u l a t i o n , b u t f r o m a p h y s i c a l i n n o v a t i o n . I n t h e m i d -1 8 0 0 s a d h e s i v e e n v e l o p e s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d , p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e a n e a s y m e a n s f o r s e a l i n g o n e ' s p e r s o n a l w r i t i n g s b e f o r e e n t r u s t i n g t h e m t o t h e p o s t a l s e r v i c e . 5 4

The self-sealing adhesive envelope was much more effective than its precursor, the wax-sealed envelope.55 Thus, the Jack-

5 0 S e e R O B E R T E L L I S S M I T H , B E N F R A N K L I N ' S W E B S I T E : P R I V A C Y A N D C U R I -O S I T Y F R O M P L Y M O U T H R O C K T O T H E I N T E R N E T 2 3 - 2 6 , 4 9 - 5 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . C o l o n i s t s w h o w e r e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t p r y i n g b y C r o w n a u t h o r i t i e s d e v e l o p e d c o d e s t o e n c r y p t t h e i r l e t t e r s . I d . a t 2 4 - 2 6 . 5 1 I d . a t 4 9 - 5 0 . 5 2 I d . a t 5 0 . 5 3 I d . a t 5 1 - 5 2 .

D u r i n g t h e N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y , i t w a s t h e t a s k o f t h e P o s t O f f i c e t o w i p e o u t a t r a d i t i o n d a t i n g b a c k t o p r e - R e v o l u t i o n a r y t i m e s t h a t i n t e r c e p t i n g m a i l a n d r e a d i n g i t w a s n o t e s p e c i a l l y u n c o m m o n C a n d t o r e p l a c e i t w i t h a n e w r e s p e c t f o r c o n f i d e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t o f l e t t e r s i n t r a n s i t . A t m i d - c e n t u r y , t h e t a s k w a s n o t y e t c o m p l e t e .

I d . a t 5 4 - 5 5 . 5 4 I d . a t 5 6 . 5 5 A n 1 8 7 3 N e w Y o r k T i m e s e d i t o r i a l n o t e d t h a t a l e t t e r A s e a l e d w i t h i t s r e d w a f e r , a n d i n t o w h i c h t h e p r y i n g e y e s o f t h e v i l l a g e p o s t m i s t r e s s s o o f t e n p e e p e d , w a s s o o n s u p e r s e d e d b y t h e e n v e l o p e , w h i c h s e c u r e d t h e i n v i o l a b i l i t y o f t h e


son Court's distinction between sealed mail and other material was made possible by an innovation in communications tech-nology. Another pertinent aspect of Jackson was its focus on the privacy of communications. The mode of communication at issue in Jackson was not new but an innovation made it reason-able, for the first time, to expect that the contents of letters and parcels could be protected from Asnoops and other members of the public.@56 Whatever its import for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, this development is significant because it paral-lels issues which were arising regarding contemporaneous tech-nology, and anticipating issues which would develop regarding evolving technology.

2. Telegraphy In 1844, Samuel Morse sent the first public telegram using technology he developed in 1836.57 After Morse formed his tele-graph company, Western Union, in 1845, the growth of Athe telegraph network was . . . explosive.@58 As lines were strung around the world, telegraphy Arevolutionized business practice, gave rise to new forms of crime, and inundated its users with information.@59 For practical reasons, telegraphy did not give rise to the privacy issues that had arisen with regard to materi-als sent through the mail. Unlike the postal system, telegraphy was a proprietary communication system where the contents of communications were revealed to agents of the telegraph com-pany, who translated the messages into Morse Code and transmitted them to another agent, who translated them back from Morse Code and then delivered them to the recipient.60 The lack of an analogue to the sealed envelope meant it was not reasonable for those who employed telegraphy to claim that the privacy of their communications had been compromised by Ainsiders@CWestern Union employees.61 c o n t e n t s f r o m a l l e y e s b u t t h o s e f o r w h i c h t h e y w e r e i n t e n d e d . @ I d . a t 5 6 . 5 6 C a l i f o r n i a v . G r e e n w o o d , 4 8 6 U . S . 3 5 , 4 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . 5 7 S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 6 6 ; s e e a l s o



There were, however, efforts to prevent the disclosure of telegram contents to Aoutsiders.@ Some states made it a crime for a telegraph company or its employees to disclose the con-tents to anyone but the authorized recipient.62 Some also adopt- T O M S T A N D A G E , T H E V I C T O R I A N I N T E R N E T : T H E R E M A R K A B L E S T O R Y O F T H E T E L E G R A P H A N D

T H E N I N E T E E N T H C E N T U R Y ' S O N - L I N E P I O N E E R S v i i ( 1 9 9 8 ) . 5 8 I d . a t 5 6 - 9 1 . 5 9 I d . a t v i i . 6 0 I d . a t 6 3 - 6 5 .

W h a t e v e r p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n o r s e n t i m e n t s w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e m e s s a g e t r u l y l e f t t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e o r i g i n a t o r . F u r t h e r , u n l i k e t h e s i t u a t i o n w i t h t h e U . S . M a i l , a n e m p l o y e e h a n d l i n g t e l e g r a p h t r a f f i c c o u l d e a s i l y r e a d m e s s a g e s w i t h o u t r i s k i n g l e a v i n g t h e t r a c e s o f a n u n o p e n e d e n v e l o p e . T h e r e w a s n o p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e o f a n i n t e r c e p t i o n . A n d , u n l i k e t h e p o s t a l s e r v i c e , t h e t e l e -g r a p h s y s t e m p e r m i t t e d t h e r e t e n t i o n o f e v e r y m e s s a g e .

S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 6 6 ; s e e a l s o A r t h u r W . G r u m b i n e , T h e E r a o f M o r s e T e l e g r a p h y : P a r t 1 , a t h t t p : / / w w w . f a r a d i c . n e t / ~ g s r a v e n / t e l e g r a p h _ t a l e s / g r u m b i n e / g r u m b i n e _ 1 . h t m l ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 2 0 0 5 ) ( A[ T e l e g r a p h y ] w a s n o d i f f e r e n t f r o m o p e n i n g e v e r y b o d y ' s m a i l a n d r e a d i n g e v e r y w o r d o f i t ; t h e n s e n d i n g t h e c o n t e n t s a c r o s s c o u n t r y b y a p e c u l i a r c o d e s y s t e m i n v e n t e d b y S a m u e l F . B . M o r s e @) . 6 1 I t w o u l d s e e m , o f c o u r s e , t h a t m e s s a g e s c o u l d b e e n c r y p t e d t o p r e s e r v e t h e p r i v a c y o f t h e i r c o n t e n t s , b u t t h i s d i d n o t b e c o m e a c o m m o n p r a c t i c e :

W h e n i t w a s f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d , m a n y p e o p l e a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t e l e g r a p h i c t r a n s -m i s s i o n w o u l d b e f a r m o r e s e c u r e t h a n t h e P o s t a l O f f i c e h a d b e e n a n d t h a t i t w o u l d p r o v i d e Ai m p e n e t r a b l e s e c r e c y , @ b e c a u s e t h e m e s s a g e s w e r e c o d e d , o r c o u l d b e c o d e d . B u t c o d i n g w a s n o t u s e d f o r m o s t b u s i n e s s a n d p e r s o n a l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . ( T h e m a i n r e a s o n w a s t h a t a s e n d e r c o u l d r e c o v e r d a m a g e s c a u s e d b y e r r o r s i n t r a n s m i s s i o n b y t h e t e l e g r a p h c o m p a n y b u t w h e n i t t r a n s m i t t e d e n c o d e d m e s s a g e s i t s l i a b i l i t y w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r ) .

S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 6 7 . S e e , e . g . , P r i m r o s e v . W . U n i o n T e l . C o . , 1 5 4 U . S . 1 , 4 - 5 ( 1 8 9 4 ) ( s u i t s e e k i n g d a m a g e s f o r m i s t a k e m a d e i n t r a n s m i t t i n g c o d e d t e l e g r a p h i c m e s s a g e ) ; P o s t a l T e l . - C a b l e C o . v . L o u i s v i l l e C o t t o n O i l C o . , 1 2 2 S . W . 8 5 2 , 8 5 2 - 5 3 ( K y . C t . A p p . 1 9 0 9 ) ( s u i t f o r d a m a g e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m f a i l u r e t o d e l i v e r c o d e d t e l e g r a p h i c m e s s a g e ) . C r i m i n a l s s o m e t i m e s e n c r y p t e d m e s -s a g e s u s e d t o f a c i l i t a t e c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . S e e , e . g . , S t a t e v . C h a p m a n , 1 8 7 1 W L 3 3 3 7 , a t * 5 ( N e v . 1 8 7 1 ) ( a c c o m p l i c e s e n t a Ac i p h e r t e l e g r a m @ a d v i s i n g r o b b e r s w h e n a l a r g e s h i p m e n t o f c o i n s w o u l d b e a r r i v i n g ) . 6 2 S e e M I N N . G E N . S T A T . ' 6 7 8 2 ( 1 8 9 4 ) ( c i t e d i n P e t e r s o n v . W . U n i o n


ed statutes creating a cause of action for those whose messages went awry or were otherwise made public.63 Some observers were concerned about the possibility that Western Union would disclose the contents of messages to authorities. This became a reality in 1877, when a Congressional committee, investigating the validity of votes cast in certain states, sought access to telegrams as evidence.64

W e s t e r n U n i o n P r e s i d e n t W i l l i a m O r t o n o r d e r e d [ h i s e m p l o y -e e s ] n o t t o r e s p o n d . H e a c c u s e d C o n g r e s s o f r e q u i r i n g h i s e m p l o y e e s ` t o b e c o m e s p i e s a n d . . . i n f o r m e r s a g a i n s t t h e c u s t o m e r s w h o h a v e r e p o s e d i n u s t h e g r a v e s t c o n f i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g b o t h t h e i r o f f i c i a l a n d t h e i r p r i v a t e a f f a i r s . ' . . . W i t h D e m o c r a t s s u p p o r t i n g d i s c l o s u r e a n d R e p u b l i c a n s s u p -p o r t i n g c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , t h e W e s t e r n U n i o n m a n a g e r w a s f o u n d i n c o n t e m p t o f C o n g r e s s . . . a r r e s t e d b y a d e p u t y s e r g e a n t o f a r m s o n C a p i t o l H i l l a n d d e t a i n e d . 6 5

T e l e g r a p h C o . , 7 7 N . W . 9 8 5 , 9 8 7 ( M i n n . 1 8 9 9 ) ; 1 3 W A G N E R ' S S T A T U T E S ' 5 1 ( c i t e d i n E x p a r t e B r o w n , 1 8 8 0 W L 4 2 3 , a t * 4 ( M o . 1 8 8 0 ) ) ; s e e a l s o L i t t l e R o c k & F o r t S m i t h T e l . C o . v . D a v i s , 1 8 8 3 W L 1 2 0 1 , a t * 3 ( A r k . 1 8 8 3 ) ( n o t i n g s t a t e s t a t u t e s i m p o s i n g c i v i l l i a b i l i t y a n d c r i m i n a l p e n a l t i e s ) ( c i t i n g S C O T T & J A R N A G A N , L A W O F T E L E -G R A P H S '' 4 1 9 - 4 6 ) . T h e e f f i c a c y o f t h e s e l a w s , w h i c h w e r e e n a c t e d i n Aa b a r e m a j o r i t y @ o f s t a t e s , @ i s u n c e r t a i n . S e e , e . g . , S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 6 8 . A N e w Y o r k T i m e s e d i t o r i a l f r o m 1 8 6 6 c l a i m e d t h a t v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e s e l a w s w e r e h a r d t o d e t e c t a n d t h a t W e s t e r n U n i o n e m p l o y e e s w e r e s u b j e c t t o A s t r o n g t e m p t a t i o n s ' @ t o i g n o r e t h e m . I d . ( q u o t i n g T h e N e w Y o r k T i m e s , D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 1 8 6 6 , a t 4 ) . 6 3 S e e V A . C O D E A N N . ' 2 9 0 0 ( M i c h i e 1 9 0 0 ) :

[ T ] e l e g r a p h c o m p a n i e s s h a l l b e l i a b l e f o r s p e c i a l d a m a g e s o c c a s i o n e d i n . . . d e l i v e r i n g d i s p a t c h e s , o r f o r t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f a n y p r i v a t e d i s p a t c h t o a n y p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n t o h i m t o w h o m i t w a s a d d r e s s e d , t h e a m o u n t o f t h e s e d a m a g e s t o b e d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e j u r y u p o n t h e f a c t s i n e a c h c a s e . G r i e f a n d m e n t a l a n g u i s h o c c a s i o n e d t o t h e p l a i n t i f f m a y b e c o n -s i d e r e d b y t h e j u r y i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e q u a n t u m o f d a m a g e s .

( q u o t e d i n C o n n e l l y v . W . U n i o n T e l . C o . , 4 0 S . E . 6 1 8 , 6 2 2 ( V a . 1 9 0 2 ) ) ; s e e a l s o I N D . R E V . S T A T . ' 5 5 1 3 ( 1 8 9 4 ) ( c i t e d i n W . U n i o n T e l . C o . v . B i e r h a u s , 3 6 N . E . 1 6 1 , 1 6 2 ( I n d . C t . A p p . 1 8 9 4 ) ) . 6 4 S e e S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 6 8 . 6 5 I d . a t 6 8 - 6 9 ; s e e a l s o E R N E S T J . E B E R L I N G , C O N G R E S S I O N A L I N V E S T I G A -



Orton eventually gave in; Western Union delivered A30,000 political telegrams . . . to the House Committee on Privileges and Elections in the winter of 1877.@66 The messages, however, were never used in the investigation,67 but the episode sparked a debate about the confidentiality of telegrams. Congressman James Garfield argued for legislation guaranteeing confidentiality, but other members of Congress believed that the A`security of society'@ was more important than confidentiality.68 Over the next few years, Congress debated whether telegrams Ashould be compared to Post Office material and therefore kept confidential@ or Ashould be avail-able by subpoena.@69 For the public, confidentiality Awas a dou-ble-edged sword: a requirement of non-disclosure or of instant destruction of messages would protect privacy but also allow the company to escape liability for errors@, since the evidence would have been destroyed.70 Western Union responded by reducing the retention time for copies of messages, and in 1880 a House Committee Areported out favorably a bill . . . to protect telegrams to the very same extent as sealed letters in the Post Office.@71 The House did not act on the bill and the proposal died, in part because of events occurring elsewhere.72 In 1880, Jay Gould, Aperhaps the most hated capitalist of America's

T I O N S : A S T U D Y O F T H E O R I G I N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T O F T H E P O W E R O F C O N G R E S S T O

I N V E S T I G A T E A N D P U N I S H F O R C O N T E M P T 2 3 1 - 4 6 ( 1 9 2 8 ) . S e e g e n e r a l l y U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B a b c o c k , 2 4 F . C a s . 9 0 8 ( C . C . M o . 1 8 7 6 ) ( r u l i n g o n O r t o n ' s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e s u b -p o e n a r e q u i r i n g p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e t e l e g r a m s ) . 6 6 S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 6 9 . 6 7 I d . 6 8 I d . A K e n t u c k y C o n g r e s s m a n s a i d G a r f i e l d h a d a A n e w f a n g l e d s e n t i m e n t a l i t y ' @ a b o u t t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f t e l e g r a m s . I d . 6 9 I d . 7 0 I d . 7 1 I d . a t 7 0 . 7 2 I d .


Gilded Age,@ acquired Western Union.73 The public's distrust of Gould led to demands that the government take over Western Union, both to prevent price gouging and to protect the privacy of telegraphic messages.74 The debate over government ac-quisition of Western Union continued for years and finally ended when Jay Gould died in 1892;75 by then, the public's reli-ance on telegraphy was being replaced by a new technologyCthe telephone.76 When Gould died, the Bell Telephone Company had been in existence for fifteen years.77 ABoston and New York were talking to Chicago, Milwaukee, Pittsburg, and Washington.

7 3 I d . 7 4 I d . a t 7 0 - 7 1 . 7 5 I d . a t 7 1 . 7 6 R o n n i e J . P h i l l i p s , D i g i t a l T e c h n o l o g y a n d I n s t i t u t i o n a l C h a n g e f r o m t h e G i l d e d A g e t o M o d e r n T i m e s : T h e I m p a c t o f t h e T e l e g r a p h a n d t h e I n t e r n e t , 3 4 J . O F E C O N . I S S U E S 2 6 7 , 2 7 6 - 7 7 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , a t h t t p : / / d i g l i b . l i b . u t k . e d u / u t j / j e i / 3 4 / j e i -3 4 - 2 - 3 . p d f ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 2 0 0 5 ) .

I t w a s a c o m p e t i n g t e c h n o l o g y t h a t u l t i m a t e l y d e s t r o y e d t h e W e s t e r n U n i o n m o n o p o l y . W i t h t h e g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e d d e m a n d f o r t h e t e l e g r a p h i n t h e p e r i o d a f t e r t h e C i v i l W a r , t h e s e a r c h b e g a n f o r t h e c r e a t i o n o f a Ah a r m o n i c t e l e g r a p h @ t h a t w o u l d e n a b l e t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s t r a n s m i s s i o n o f m u l t i p l e m e s -s a g e s . I n t h e 1 8 9 0 s , A l e x a n d e r G r a h a m B e l l w a s t e a c h i n g d e a f m u t e s i n B o s t o n . T w o l o c a l w e a l t h y b u s i n e s s m e n , w h o e a c h h a d a d e a f c h i l d , w e r e i m p r e s s e d b y B e l l ' s p e r s o n a l i t y a n d d e c i d e d t o b a c k h i m i n t h e r a c e t o b e a t W e s t e r n U n i o n i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a p r a c t i c a l h a r m o n i c t e l e g r a p h . W h i l e w o r k i n g o n t h e h a r m o n i c t e l e g r a p h , B e l l d i s c o v e r e d b y a c c i d e n t t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e t e l e p h o n e . T h e n e w t e c h n o l o g y w a s d e m o n s t r a t e d a t t h e C e n t e n n i a l E x p o s i t i o n o f 1 8 7 6 i n P h i l a d e l p h i a . A f t e r a p a t e n t d i s p u t e w i t h B e l l T e l e p h o n e , i n N o v e m b e r 1 8 7 9 W e s t e r n U n i o n f o r m a l l y c o n t r a c t e d t o r e l i n q u i s h t h e r i g h t s t o t h e n e w t e l e p h o n e t e c h -n o l o g y t o B e l l , u n d e r t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e n e w t e c h n o l o g y w o u l d n o t c h a l -l e n g e t h e t e l e g r a p h . B e l l T e l e p h o n e , f o r m e d i n M a y 1 8 7 7 , w a s a n i m m e d i a t e s u c c e s s . . . . [ W ] i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s t h e r e w e r e 3 0 , 0 0 0 p h o n e s i n u s e a r o u n d t h e w o r l d . I n 1 8 8 6 , t h e r e w e r e m o r e t h a n 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 p h o n e s i n u s e w o r l d w i d e . B y t h e t u r n o f t h e c e n t u r y , t h e t e l e g r a p h h a d s e e n i t s h e y d a y .

I d . 7 7 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . .



One-half of the people of the United States were within talking distance of each other.@78 It had been transmitting a million messages a day since 1888, install its first million telephones in 1898, and would string its first million miles of wire in 1900.79 AA new generation had grown up, without the prejudices of its fathers. People had grown away from the telegraphic habit of thought, which was that wire communications were expensive luxuries for the few.@80

3. Telephony Telephones were less expensive to use than telegraphy, and they held out the possibility of providing more confidentiality because one could communicate directly, instead of relying on telegraph agents to code, transmit, and de-code the contents of the communication.81 However, the early telephone system was not actually secure because it was not a truly automated system:

O n e Ap a r t y l i n e @ w o u l d s e r v e f o u r o r m o r e c u s t o m e r s . S i m p l y b y p i c k i n g u p t h e t e l e p h o n e , . . . c u s t o m e r s c o u l d h e a r t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n o f a n o t h e r i f t h e l i n e w e r e i n u s e . . . . [ T ] h i s w a s c o m m o n b e c a u s e a p a r t y - l i n e c u s t o m e r w o u l d h a v e n o o t h e r w a y o f k n o w i n g w h e t h e r t h e l i n e w a s f r e e . . . e x c e p t t o p i c k u p t h e p h o n e a n d l i s t e n . T h e r e w a s n o d i a l t o n e i n t h o s e d a y s ; . . . o p e r a t o r s w o u l d d i r e c t t h e c a l l m a n u a l l y a t a s w i t c h b o a r d . I n s m a l l t o w n s , y o u c o u l d s i m p l y a s k t h e o p e r a -t o r f o r t h e n a m e o f t h e p e r s o n y o u w a n t e d t o r e a c h . . . . I f t h e o p e r a t o r h a d . . . t r i e d t o p l a c e a c a l l t o t h e s a m e p e r s o n a n d g o t t e n n o a n s w e r , s h e m i g h t t e l l t h e c a l l e r t h a t

7 8 H E R B E R T N . C A S S O N , T H E H I S T O R Y O F T H E T E L E P H O N E 1 8 3 ( 1 9 1 0 ) ; s e e a l s o s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 7 9 C A S S O N , s u p r a n o t e 7 8 , a t 1 8 2 . 8 0 I d . a t 1 7 8 ; s e e a l s o J O H N W . O L I V E R , H I S T O R Y O F A M E R I C A N

T E C H N O L O G Y 4 4 0 ( 1 9 5 6 ) ( AT h e t e l e p h o n e , u n l i k e t h e t e l e g r a p h . . . , w a s t h e i n s t r u m e n t o f , a n d f o r , t h e p e o p l e . I t s e r v e d i n d i v i d u a l s o f l i m i t e d m e a n s a s e f f i c i e n t l y a s t h e m a n o f w e a l t h . @) . 8 1 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t .


t h e p e r s o n w a s n ' t h o m e . . . [ O ] p e r a t o r s k n e w w h o w a s t a l k i n g w i t h w h o m , i f n o t t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n . 8 2

The lack of privacy led a Kansas City undertaker named Almon Strowger to invent an Aautomatic telephone switching system that dispensed with operators.@83 Strowger patented his device in 1882; it was implemented in Indiana in 1892 and by 1918 it had become the norm for automatic exchanges in the United Kingdom.84 The Bell system was much slower to adopt auto-mated switching,85 but by the 1920's it had substantially re-

8 2 S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 5 5 ; s e e a l s o J o h n B r a y , T H E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S M I R A C L E : T H E T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N P I O N E E R S F R O M

M O R S E T O T H E I N F O R M A T I O N S U P E R H I G H W A Y 5 6 ( 1 9 9 5 ) : T h e p r o b l e m o f c o n n e c t i n g a c a l l i n g t o a c a l l e d c u s t o m e r w a s a t f i r s t s o l v e d b y m a n u a l l y o p e r a t e d t e l e p h o n e e x c h a n g e s i n w h i c h a n o p e r a t o r s i m p l y p l u g g e d i n a c o r d b e t w e e n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c o m i n g a n d o u t g o i n g t e l e p h o n e l i n e t e r m i n a l s o n a s w i t c h b o a r d . T h i s s y s t e m h a d t h e a d v a n t a g e t h a t i t p r o v i d e d , f r o m t h e c u s t o m e r v i e w p o i n t , g o o d s e r v i c e s i n c e t h e o p e r a t o r c o u l d , i n s y s t e m s w i t h s m a l l n u m b e r s o f l i n e s , r e a d i l y f i n d t h e c a l l e d c u s t o m e r b y n a m e , a n d a n s w e r q u e r i e s m a d e b y t h e c a l l e r . B u t i t b e c a m e c u m b e r s o m e w h e n l a r g e n u m b e r s o f l i n e s w e r e i n v o l v e d , a d i f f i c u l t y o n l y p a r t i a l l y s o l v e d b y t h e u s e o f ` m u l t i p l e ' s w i t c h b o a r d s w i t h g r o u p s o f o p e r a -t o r s . A n d t h e r e w a s t h e i n h e r e n t p r o b l e m o f ` o v e r h e a r i n g ' t h e c u s t o m e r s ' t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s b y t h e o p e r a t o r s a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n t l a c k o f p r i v a -c y .

I d . 8 3 B R A Y , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 5 7 . AS t r o w g e r f o u n d t h a t h e w a s l o s i n g m o n e y i n h i s u n d e r t a k i n g b u s i n e s s b e c a u s e o n e o f t h e s w i t c h b o a r d o p e r a t o r s a t t h e K a n s a s C i t y t e l e p h o n e e x c h a n g e w a s m a r r i e d t o a r i v a l u n d e r t a k e r a n d s h e w o u l d c o n n e c t S t r o w g e r ' s c a l l e r s w i s h i n g t o m a k e f u n e r a l a r -r a n g e m e n t s t o h e r h u s b a n d . @ I d . 8 4 I d . a t 5 9 . 8 5 I d . O n e r e a s o n w a s a c o n c e r n t h a t a u t o m a t e d s w i t c h i n g c o u l d n o t e f -f i c i e n t l y h a n d l e t h e v o l u m e o f p h o n e t r a f f i c i n l a r g e c i t i e s . S e e , e . g . , J o a n N i x & D a v i d G a b e l , T h e I n t r o d u c t i o n o f A u t o m a t i c S w i t c h i n g i n t o t h e B e l l S y s t e m : M a r k e t v e r s u s I n s t i t u t i o n a l I n f l u e n c e s , 3 0 J . O F E C O N . I S S U E S 7 3 7 , 7 4 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) .

A n o t h e r b e l i e f t h a t s h a p e d A T & T ' s b e h a v i o r t o w a r d a u t o m a t i c s w i t c h i n g i s



placed the operator-assisted system, at least in urban areas.86 Once automated switching was introduced, AAmericans became comfortable using the telephone for personal and sensitive matters@87 because they assumed their telephone conversations were confidential or Aprivate.@ This was, however, an unresolved issue because the introduction of automated switch-ing eliminated operator involvement and essentially resolved the Ainsider@ problem, i.e., the concern that telephone employ-ees would listen in on conversations88 but it left the Aoutsider@ problem. The outsider problem was the possibility that persons not associated with the telephone company would listen in on what the parties believed to be Aprivate@ telephone conversa-tions. This possibility was not unique to telephonic communication. Technology that could be used to tap telegraphic commu-nications emerged soon after the invention of the telegraph.89 During the Civil War, the Union and Confederate armies tapped each other's telegraphic communications to obtain infor-

r e l a t e d t o t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r r o l e o f c u s t o m e r s i n p l a c i n g a c a l l . D e s p i t e a n a b u n d a n c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t c u s t o m e r s p r e f e r r e d t o d i a l o n t h e i r o w n , a c o n s e n s u s w a s r e a c h e d t h a t i n s e l e c t i n g t e c h n o l o g y , e q u i p m e n t s h o u l d b e s e l e c t e d t h a t d i d n o t r e q u i r e c u s t o m e r s ` t o d o p a r t o f t h e s e r -v i c e . ' . . . . A T & T ' s m a n a g e m e n t b e l i e v e d t h a t k e e p i n g c u s t o m e r i n v o l v e m e n t t o a m i n i m u m w o u l d e n h a n c e t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f t e l e p h o n y . . . . [ T ] h e m a n -a g e m e n t o f A T & T h e l d o n t o t h e i d e o l o g i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t c u s t o m e r s p o s s e s s e d l i m i t e d c a p a b i l i t i e s f o r c o m p r e h e n d i n g t h e s t e p s i n v o l v e d i n d i a l i n g a p h o n e .

I d . ( f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . 8 6 I d . ; s e e a l s o R i c h a r d R . J o h n , T h e P o l i t i c s o f I n n o v a t i o n , 1 2 7 . 4 D A E D A L U S 1 8 7 , 2 0 6 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ( AN o t u n t i l t h e 1 9 2 0 s , w i t h t h e w i d e s p r e a d i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e d i a l t e l e p h o n e , w o u l d B e l l d e m o c r a t i z e t e l e p h o n y b y p e r m i t t i n g s u b s c r i b e r s t o h o l d a t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o r e l y o n . . . o p e r a t o r s t o m a k e t h e c o n n e c t i o n . @) . 8 7 S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 5 6 . 8 8 I d . T h a t , o f c o u r s e , w a s n o t p o s s i b l e w i t h t e l e g r a p h y . 8 9 D a n i e l J . S o l o v e , R e c o n s t r u c t i n g E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e L a w , 7 2 G E O . W A S H . L . R E V . 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 7 0 ( 2 0 0 4 ) .


mation about battle plans and troop movements and after the war rival newspapers tapped each other's wire communications in an effort to be the first to report major stories.90 Some states had enacted laws making it a crime to intercept telegraphic communications,91 but there was no federa legislation on point.92 It is possible that because law enforcement did not ap- 9 0 I d . ( q u o t i n g P R I S C I L L A M . R E G A N , L E G I S L A T I N G P R I V A C Y : T E C H N O L O G Y , S O -C I A L V A L U E S , A N D P U B L I C P O L I C Y 1 1 1 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ) . AI n t e r c e p t i o n o f t e l e g r a m s [ d u r i n g t h e C i v i l w a r ] w a s s u c h a t h r e a t t h a t t h e U n i o n a r m y b e g a n u s i n g c i p h e r c o d e s t o e n c r y p t m e s s a g e s ; o n l y g e n e r a l s a n d t h e W a r D e p a r t m e n t p o s s e s s e d t h e c o d e s . @ T h o m a s F . O ' N e i l l I I I , K e v i n P . G a l l a g h e r & J o n a t h o n L . N e v e t t , D e t o u r s O n T h e I n f o r m a t i o n S u -p e r h i g h w a y : T h e E r o s i o n O f E v i d e n t i a r y P r i v i l e g e s I n C y b e r s p a c e A n d B e y o n d , 1 9 9 7 S T A N . T E C H . L . R E V . 3 , 4 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . 9 1 S e e S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 5 7 . S e e , e . g . , 1 8 6 2 C A L . S T A T . 2 8 8 ( c i t e d i n A n d r e w A y e r s , N o t e , T h e P o l i c e C a n D o W h a t ? M a k i n g L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t a l E n t i t i e s P a y F o r U n a u t h o r i z e d W i r e t a p p i n g , 1 9 N . Y . L . S C H . J . H U M . R T S . 6 5 1 , 6 5 7 n . 6 3 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ) . 9 2 S e e S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 5 7 . S e e , e . g . , E x p a r t e B r o w n , 1 8 8 0 W L 4 2 3 4 a t * 5 ( AT e l e g r a p h i c m e s s a g e s a r e n o t p r i v i l e g e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . . . . N o s t a t u t e o f t h i s S t a t e , o r o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , h a s m a d e t h e m s o . @) . T h e r e s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n l i t t l e e f f o r t t o a p p l y J a c k s o n ' s F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t s t a n d a r d t o t e l e g r a m s . I n B r o w n , t h e p e t i t i o n e r a p p a r e n t l y d i d a r g u e f o r t h i s , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t At h e l e t t e r a n d t e l e g r a m , s o f a r a s t h e i n c i d e n t s o f t r a n s m i s s i o n a r e c o n c e r n e d , s h o u l d s t a n d u p o n t h e s a m e b a s i s . . . . T h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t s e n d s t h e l e t t e r , a n d a p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n t h e t e l e g r a m , d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e p r i n c i p l e . @ B r o w n , 1 8 8 0 W L a t * 4 . T h e c o u r t d i s a g r e e d :

T h a t m o d e o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s o f r e c e n t o r i g i n , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e c o m m o n l a w f u r n i s h e s n o t h i n g b u t a n a l o g i e s f o r o u r g u i d e . T e l e g r a p h i c l i n e s a r e n o t o p e r a t e d b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t . . . . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d p o s t a l f a c i l i t i e s w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d b y C o n g r e s s ; t h e m a i l s a r e c a r r i e d b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t t h r o u g h i t s o w n a g e n t s , a n d p e n a l s t a t u t e s p r o t e c t c o m m u n i c a t i o n s s e n t t h r o u g h t h e m a i l . T h e e n t i r e p o s t a l s y s t e m i s u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t . . . . T h e r e i s n o s u c h a n a l o g y b e t w e e n t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b y m a i l , a n d t h e i r t r a n m i s s i o n b y t e l e g r a p h , a s w o u l d j u s t i f y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e l a t t e r o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h o b t a i n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f o r m e r .

I d . a t * 5 ; s e e a l s o M a r t i n v . S h e r i f f , 1 8 9 4 W L 1 4 4 0 ( O h i o P r o b . 1 8 9 4 ) ( AI t i s n o t a c r i m e , u n d e r t h e l a w s o f O h i o , t o t a p a t e l e g r a p h w i r e . @) . T h e r e w e r e , h o w e v e r , o c c a -s i o n a l r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e u s e o f w a r r a n t s t o o b t a i n t e l e g r a p h i c m e s s a g e s .



pear to have used wiretaps when investigating crimes,93 this was not a topic of hot dispute for the public as of yet. For whatever reason, law enforcement approached the telephone differently: Police had begun to tap telephone con-versations at least by the 1890's.94 The practice, which was not encompassed by state laws outlawing the interception of tele-graphic communications, continued for years, becoming the fo-cus of a controversy in 1916. The New York City Police were found to have intercepted telephone conversations with the assistance of the telephone company.95 The police contended there was no impropriety given the realities of the then-prevalent operator-assisted telephone system: ATelephone con-versations . . . cannot be private in the way that letters can be, since the employees of the telephone company cannot help hearing parts of conversations and may, if they are inclined, easily hear all.@96 During this era, there was no telephonic ana-logue of the sealed envelope.97 In the 1920's, the implementation of automated switching gave rise to the perception that telephone conversations were private, just as sealed mail was private.98 This led to greater

9 3 T h i s m a y h a v e b e e n d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t Ao r i g i n a l d r a f t s o f t e l e g r a m s f i l e d w i t h c l e r k s f o r d i s p a t c h , a s w e l l a s t h e t e l e g r a p h c o m p a n y ' s c o p i e s o f t h e r e c e i v e d m e s s a g e s , h a d t o b e p r o d u c e d f o r c o u r t t r i a l s a n d l e g i s l a t i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . @ J o h n D . W o o d w a r d , B i o m e t r i c S c a n n i n g , L a w & P o l i c y : I d e n t i f y i n g T h e C o n c e r n s - D r a f t i n g T h e B i o m e t r i c B l u e p r i n t , 5 9 U . P I T T . L . R E V . 9 7 , 1 1 9 n . 1 7 7 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ( c i t i n g A L A N F . W E S T I N , P R I V A C Y A N D F R E E D O M 3 3 7 ( 1 s t e d . 1 9 6 7 ) ) . 9 4 S e e , e . g . , A y e r s , T h e P o l i c e C a n D o W h a t ? , s u p r a n o t e 9 1 , a t 6 5 8 ( i n t h e e a r l y 1 8 9 0 ' s , N e w Y o r k p o l i c e w e r e t h e f i r s t t o t a p t e l e p h o n e s ) ( c i t i n g W H I T -F I E L D D I F F I E & S U S A N L A N D A U , P R I V A C Y O N T H E L I N E : T H E P O L I T I C S O F W I R E T A P P I N G A N D

E N C R Y P T I O N 1 5 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ) . T e l e p h o n e t a p p i n g a p p a r e n t l y b e g a n m u c h e a r l i e r : AI n 1 8 8 1 , o n l y f i v e y e a r s a f t e r t h e i n v e n t i o n o f t h e t e l e p h o n e , a p a t e n t w a s i s s u e d f o r a s c r a m b l e r t h a t t h w a r t e d t e l e p h o n e t a p p e r s . @ I d . a t 6 5 7 . 9 5 I d . ( c i t i n g S A M U E L D A S H E T A L . , T H E E A V E S D R O P P E R S 2 5 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ) . 9 6 P o l i c e E s p i o n a g e i n a D e m o c r a c y , O U T L O O K 2 3 5 ( M a y 3 1 , 1 9 1 6 ) ( q u o t e d i n S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 5 7 ) . 9 7 S e e s u p r a n o t e 5 5 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 9 8 S e e s u p r a n o t e 8 6 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t .


use of telephones by the public, and by those engaged in unlaw-ful activities; this, in turn, resulted in the Supreme Court's considering whether the Fourth Amendment constrained police wiretapping.99 The issue in Olmstead v. United States was Awhether the use of evidence of private telephone conversa- 9 9 P r i o r t o O l m s t e a d , o n l y a f e w r e p o r t e d d e c i s i o n s a d d r e s s e d w i r e t a p p i n g , m o s t l y i n t h e c o n t e x t o f p r o s e c u t i o n s u n d e r s t a t u t e s t h a t m a d e i t a c r i m e t o i n t e r c e p t t e l e g r a p h o r t e l e p h o n e m e s s a g e s . S e e , e . g . , S t a t e v . B e h r i n g e r , 1 7 2 P . 6 6 0 , 6 1 9 ( A r i z . 1 9 1 8 ) ( h o l d i n g i t w a s n o t a v i o l a t i o n o f A r i z o n a P e n a l C o d e s e c t i o n 6 9 2 C w h i c h m a d e i t u n l a w f u l Ab y m e a n s o f a n y m a c h i n e , i n s t r u m e n t o r c o n -t r i v a n c e @ t o r e a d o r a t t e m p t t o r e a d Aa n y m e s s a g e , o r t o l e a r n t h e c o n t e n t s t h e r e o f , w h i l s t t h e s a m e i s b e i n g s e n t o v e r a n y t e l e g r a p h o r t e l e p h o n e l i n e @C t o p l a c e a d i c t o g r a p h o v e r t h e t r a n s o m o f a r o o m a n d t h e r e b y h e a r w h a t w a s s a i d o v e r a t e l e -p h o n e ) ; s e e a l s o O l m s t e a d , 2 7 7 U . S . a t 4 7 9 n . 1 3 ( B r a n d e i s , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ( l i s t i n g s t a t u t e s t h a t m a d e i t a c r i m e t o i n t e r c e p t t e l e p h o n e o r t e l e g r a p h m e s s a g e s ) . P o l i c e w i r e t a p p i n g s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n i d i o s y n c r a t i c . S e e O r i n S . K e r r , T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t A n d N e w T e c h n o l o g i e s : C o n s t i t u t i o n a l M y t h s A n d T h e C a s e F o r C a u t i o n , 1 0 2 M I C H . L . R E V . 8 0 1 , 8 4 1 n . 2 2 9 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( A[ I ] t a p p e a r s t h a t s o m e s t a t e p o l i c e a g e n c i e s w i r e t a p p e d d e f e n d a n t s , b u t o t h e r s d i d n o t . @) . S e e , e . g . , P e o p l e v . H e b b e r d , 9 6 M i s c . 6 1 7 , 1 6 2 N . Y . S . 8 0 ( N . Y . S u p . C t . 1 9 1 6 ) . I n S t a t e v . N o r d s k o g , 1 3 6 P . 6 9 4 ( W a s h . 1 9 1 3 ) , t h e W a s h i n g t o n S u p r e m e C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e c o n v i c t i o n o f a f o r m e r d e t e c t i v e a n d Ap r o f e s s i o n a l w i r e t a p p e r @ f o r Ad a m a g i n g @ a t e l e p h o n e l i n e . T h e c o u r t b a s e d t h e c o n v i c t i o n s o l e l y o n h i s h a v i n g t a p p e d t h e l i n e t o i n t e r c e p t a m e s s a g e . S e e i d . a t 6 9 4 - 9 5 . I t f o u n d t h a t t h e m e r e a c t o f t a p p i n g t h e l i n e i n f l i c t e d n o d a m a g e , b u t i t a l s o n o t e d t h e n e e d f o r l e g i s l a t i o n t o p r e v e n t f u r t h e r s u c h a c t s :

[ T ] h e r e h a s b e e n a l t o g e t h e r t o o m u c h o f t h i s f o r m o f p i l f e r i n g g o i n g o n i n t h i s s t a t e , a n d t h e o m i s s i o n o f t h e l a w n o w d i s c l o s e d c a l l s a l o u d f o r l e g i s l a t i v e a c -t i o n . . . . [ T ] h e l a w s h o u l d b e s o f r a m e d t h a t t h e p r i v a c y o f a l l c i t i z e n s . . . m a y b e p r o t e c t e d , a n d t h a t a n y t a m p e r i n g o r i n t e r f e r e n c e , h o w e v e r s l i g h t , t h a t i s n o t d o n e u n d e r t h e r u l e s o f t h e c o m p a n y a n d b y i t s a g e n t s , o r u n d e r s o m e r e g u l a t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c s e r v i c e c o m m i s s i o n , m a y b e p r o h i b i t e d .

I d . a t 6 9 5 ; s e e a l s o R o b i l i o v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 9 1 F . 9 7 5 , 9 8 2 - 8 3 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 2 3 ) ( u p h o l d i n g t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d b y w i r e t a p p i n g t h e h o m e o f t h e d e f e n -d a n t a g a i n s t e v i d e n t i a r y c h a l l e n g e s a s t o i t s a u t h e n t i c i t y ; n o c h a l l e n g e w a s b a s e d o n t h e a c t o f w i r e t a p p i n g i t s e l f ) ; P e o p l e v . M c D o n a l d , 1 6 5 N . Y . S . 4 1 , 4 4 - 4 5 ( N . Y . A p p . D i v . 1 9 1 7 ) ( r e f u s i n g t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d b y t a p p i n g t h e h o m e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t u n d e r N e w Y o r k l a w i t w a s i m m a t e r i a l h o w t h e s t a t e o b t a i n e d t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h a t t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t d i d n o t a p p l y t o t h e s t a t e s , o n l y t o t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t ) .



tions . . . intercepted by means of wire tapping, amounted to a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.@100 Prohibition officers had installed wiretaps on telephone lines leading from the residences of suspected bootlegger Roy Olmstead and three of his associates.101 The government used the information ob-tained by the wiretaps to prosecute Olmstead and the others for violating prohibition laws.102 Since the taps were connected to the telephone lines as they ran toward the residences, there was no physical intrusion into the homes.103

1 0 0 2 7 7 U . S . 4 5 5 ( 1 9 2 8 ) . 1 0 1 O l m s t e a d , a f o r m e r S e a t t l e p o l i c e l i e u t e n a n t , h a d b e c o m e t h e b i g g e s t b o o t l e g g e r i n w e s t e r n W a s h i n g t o n . S e e W . M U R P H Y , W I R E T A P P I N G O N T R I A L : A

C A S E S T U D Y I N T H E J U D I C I A L P R O C E S S 1 6 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; 2 7 7 U . S . a t 4 5 5 - 5 6 : T h e e v i d e n c e . . . d i s c l o s e s a c o n s p i r a c y o f a m a z i n g m a g n i t u d e t o i m p o r t , p o s s e s s , a n d s e l l l i q u o r u n l a w f u l l y . I t i n v o l v e d . . . n o t l e s s t h a n 5 0 p e r s o n s , . . . t w o s e a g o i n g v e s s e l s f o r t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f l i q u o r . . . , t h e m a i n -t e n a n c e o f a c e n t r a l o f f i c e m a n n e d w i t h o p e r a t o r s , a n d t h e e m p l o y m e n t o f e x e c u t i v e s , s a l e s m e n , d e l i v e r y m e n , d i s p a t c h e r s , s c o u t s , b o o k k e e p e r s , c o l l e c -t o r s a n d a n a t t o r n e y . I n a b a d m o n t h s a l e s a m o u n t e d t o $ 1 7 6 , 0 0 0 ; t h e a g g r e g a t e f o r a y e a r m u s t h a v e e x c e e d e d t w o m i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s .

I d . O l m s t e a d w a s t h e Al e a d i n g c o n s p i r a t o r a n d t h e g e n e r a l m a n a g e r o f t h e b u s i n e s s @ w h i c h u t i l i z e d t e l e p h o n e s i n i t s o p e r a t i o n s :

O f t h e s e v e r a l o f f i c e s i n S e a t t l e , t h e c h i e f o n e w a s i n a l a r g e o f f i c e b u i l d i n g . I n t h i s t h e r e w e r e t h r e e t e l e p h o n e s o n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t l i n e s . T h e r e w e r e t e l e -p h o n e s i n a n o f f i c e o f t h e m a n a g e r i n h i s o w n h o m e , a t t h e h o m e s o f h i s a s s o c i a t e s , a n d a t o t h e r p l a c e s i n t h e c i t y . C o m m u n i c a t i o n w a s h a d f r e q u e n t l y w i t h V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . T i m e s w e r e f i x e d f o r t h e d e -l i v e r i e s o f t h e As t u f f @ t o p l a c e s a l o n g P u g e t S o u n d n e a r S e a t t l e . . . . O n e o f t h e c h i e f m e n w a s a l w a y s o n d u t y a t t h e m a i n o f f i c e t o r e c e i v e o r d e r s b y t h e t e l e p h o n e s a n d t o d i r e c t t h e i r f i l l i n g b y a c o r p s o f m e n s t a t i o n e d i n a n o t h e r r o o m . . . . T h e c a l l n u m b e r s o f t h e t e l e p h o n e s w e r e g i v e n t o t h o s e k n o w n t o b e l i k e l y c u s t o m e r s .

I d . a t 4 5 6 . 1 0 2 S e e i d . a t 4 5 5 ( AT h e p e t i t i o n e r s w e r e c o n v i c t e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f W a s h i n g t o n o f a c o n s p i r a c y t o v i o l a t e t h e N a t i o n a l P r o h i b i t i o n A c t . . . b y u n l a w f u l l y p o s s e s s i n g , t r a n s p o r t i n g a n d i m p o r t i n g i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r s a n d . . . b y s e l l i n g i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r s @) . 1 0 3 S e e i d . a t 4 5 6 - 5 7 :


In an opinion by Chief Justice Taft, a majority of the Court held that the Fourth Amendment104 did not apply because there was no trespass:105 AThe language of the amendment cannot be . . . expanded to include telephone wires, reaching to the whole world from the defendant's house or office. The inter-vening wires are not part of his house or office, any more than are the highways along which they are stretched.@106 Justice Taft was careful to distinguish telephone conversations from

[ I ] n f o r m a t i o n . . . w a s . . . o b t a i n e d b y i n t e r c e p t i n g m e s s a g e s o n t h e t e l e p h o n e s o f t h e c o n s p i r a t o r s . . . . S m a l l w i r e s w e r e i n s e r t e d a l o n g t h e . . . t e l e p h o n e w i r e s f r o m t h e r e s i d e n c e s o f . . . t h e p e t i t i o n e r s a n d t h o s e l e a d i n g f r o m t h e c h i e f o f f i c e . T h e i n s e r t i o n s w e r e m a d e w i t h o u t t r e s p a s s u p o n a n y p r o p e r t y o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s . T h e y w e r e m a d e i n t h e b a s e m e n t o f t h e l a r g e o f -f i c e b u i l d i n g . T h e t a p s f r o m h o u s e l i n e s w e r e m a d e i n t h e s t r e e t s n e a r t h e h o u s e s .

1 0 4 T h e C o u r t f o u n d t h e r e w a s n o b a s i s f o r a p p l y i n g t h e F i f t h A m e n d m e n t b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s An o e v i d e n c e o f c o m p u l s i o n t o i n d u c e t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o t a l k o v e r t h e i r m a n y t e l e p h o n e s . T h e y w e r e c o n t i n u a l l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y t r a n s a c t i n g b u s i n e s s w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e o f t h e i n t e r c e p t i o n . O u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n m u s t b e c o n f i n e d t o t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t . @ I d . a t 4 6 2 . 1 0 5 S e e i d . a t 4 6 6 :

T h e r e a s o n a b l e v i e w i s t h a t o n e w h o i n s t a l l s i n h i s h o u s e a t e l e p h o n e i n s t r u -m e n t w i t h c o n n e c t i n g w i r e s i n t e n d s t o p r o j e c t h i s v o i c e t o t h o s e q u i t e o u t -s i d e , a n d t h a t t h e w i r e s b e y o n d h i s h o u s e , a n d m e s s a g e s w h i l e p a s s i n g o v e r t h e m a r e n o t w i t h i n t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t . . . . W e t h i n k , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e w i r e t a p p i n g h e r e d i s c l o s e d d i d n o t a m o u n t t o a s e a r c h o r s e i z u r e w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t .

S e e i d . a t 4 5 7 ( T h e t a p s w e r e i n s t a l l e d Aw i t h o u t t r e s p a s s u p o n a n y p r o p e r t y o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s . @) ; s e e a l s o i d . a t 4 6 5 ( A T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t i s t o b e c o n s t r u e d i n t h e l i g h t o f w h a t w a s d e e m e d a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e w h e n i t w a s a d o p t e d . ' @) ( q u o t i n g C a r r o l l v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 6 7 U . S . 1 3 2 , 1 4 9 ( 1 9 2 5 ) ) . I n a f f i r m i n g O l m s t e a d ' s c o n v i c t i o n , t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t e x p l i c i t l y n o t e d t h e n e e d f o r a p h y s i c a l t r e s p a s s : A[ T h e a m e n d m e n t ] h a s n e v e r b e e n e x t e n d e d t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f e v i -d e n c e o b t a i n e d b y l i s t e n i n g t o t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n o f p e r s o n s . . . . T h e p u r p o s e . . . i s t o p r e v e n t t h e i n v a s i o n o f h o m e s a n d o f f i c e s a n d t h e s e i z u r e o f i n c r i m i n a t i n g e v i d e n c e f o u n d t h e r e i n . @ 1 9 F . 2 d 8 4 2 , 8 4 7 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 2 7 ) . 1 0 6 I d . a t 4 6 5 .



letters:

I t i s u r g e d t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e o f M r . J u s t i c e F i e l d i n E x p a r t e J a c k s o n . . . o f f e r s a n a n a l o g y t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t i n r e s p e c t o f w i r e t a p p i n g . B u t t h e a n a l o -g y f a i l s . . . . I t i s p l a i n l y w i t h i n t h e w o r d s o f t h e a m e n d m e n t t o s a y t h a t t h e u n l a w f u l r i f l i n g b y a g o v e r n m e n t a g e n t o f a s e a l e d l e t t e r i s a s e a r c h . . . o f t h e s e n d e r ' s p a p e r s o f e f f e c t s . T h e l e t t e r i s a p a p e r , a n e f f e c t . . . . 1 0 7

Justice Brandeis famously dissented, arguing that the AFourth Amendment must adapt to a changing world.@108 He pointed out that when the amendment was adopted, force was

t h e o n l y m e a n s k n o w n t o m a n b y w h i c h a g o v e r n m e n t c o u l d d i r e c t l y e f f e c t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n . . . . I t c o u l d s e c u r e . . . p a -p e r s a n d o t h e r a r t i c l e s . . . b y b r e a k i n g a n d e n t r y . . . . B u t ` t i m e w o r k s c h a n g e s , b r i n g s i n t o e x i s t e n c e n e w c o n d i t i o n s a n d p u r p o s e s . ' S u b t l e r a n d m o r e f a r - r e a c h i n g m e a n s o f i n v a d i n g p r i v a c y h a v e b e c o m e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e g o v -e r n m e n t . . . . T h e p r o g r e s s o f s c i e n c e . . . i s n o t l i k e l y t o s t o p w i t h w i r e t a p p i n g . W a y s m a y . . . b e d e v e l o p e d b y w h i c h t h e g o v e r n m e n t , w i t h o u t r e m o v i n g p a p e r s f r o m s e c r e t d r a w e r s , c a n r e p r o d u c e t h e m i n c o u r t , a n d . . . e x p o s e t o a j u r y t h e m o s t i n t i m a t e o c c u r r e n c e s o f t h e h o m e . . . . C a n i t b e t h a t t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a f f o r d s n o p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t s u c h i n v a s i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s e c u r i t y ? 1 0 9

After Olmstead, wiretapping might violate state law, but it was constitutionally permissible; Congress considered banning it, but ultimately did nothing.110 In 1935, Congress adopted the 1 0 7 I d . a t 4 6 4 . J u s t i c e T a f t a l s o h e l d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o s e i z u r e b e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e Aw a s s e c u r e d b y t h e u s e o f t h e s e n s e o f h e a r i n g a n d t h a t o n l y . @ I d . 1 0 8 I d . a t 4 7 4 . 1 0 9 I d . a t 4 7 3 - 7 4 . 1 1 0 S e e N a r d o n e v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 0 2 U . S . 3 7 9 , 3 8 2 ( 1 9 3 7 ) ( AC o n g r e s s i o n a l c o m m i t t e e s i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e w i r e - t a p p i n g a c t i v i t i e s o f f e d e r a l a g e n t s . . . . [ B ] i l l s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d t o p r o h i b i t t h e p r a c t i c e , a l l o f w h i c h f a i l e d t o


Federal Communications Act for reasons having nothing to do with Olmstead;111 section 605 of the Act prohibited intercepting a communication without the permission of the sender and divulging or publishing the contents.112 In 1937, the Supreme Court held that ' 605 applied to federal officers, and that evi-dence obtained in violation of the statute was inadmissible in federal prosecutions.113 Two years later, it expanded its holding to encompass evidence derived from the use of wiretaps.114 The Department of Justice took the position that ' 605 did not prohibit wiretapping for Apurely investigative purposes@, and therefore continued to conduct electronic surveillance over the next three decades.115 During this era, the Supreme Court occa-sionally heard cases involving the use of wiretaps or other types of surveillance, and always held that, absent a physical trespass, such activity was outside the Fourth Amendment.116 In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed Olmstead and held that FBI agents violated the Fourth Amendment by installing an Aelectronic listening and recording device@ on the outside of a

p a s s . @) . 1 1 1 S e e i d . 1 1 2 S e e C h . 6 5 2 , T i t l e V I , ' 6 0 5 , 4 8 S t a t . 1 1 0 3 ( 1 9 3 4 ) , a s a m e n d e d , 4 7 U . S . C . ' 6 0 5 . 1 1 3 S e e N a r d o n e , 3 0 2 U . S . a t 3 8 3 - 8 4 . 1 1 4 S e e N a r d o n e v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 0 8 U . S . 3 3 8 , 3 4 1 - 4 2 ( 1 9 3 9 ) . 1 1 5 S e e D a v i d S . E g g e r t , N o t e , E x e c u t i v e O r d e r 1 2 , 3 3 3 : A n A s s e s s m e n t o f t h e V a l i d i t y o f W a r r a n t l e s s N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y S e a r c h e s , 1 9 8 3 D U K E L . J . 6 1 1 , 6 2 1 - 2 2 ; s e e a l s o K e n G o r m l e y , O n e H u n d r e d Y e a r s o f P r i v a c y , 1 9 9 2 W I S . L . R E V . 1 3 3 5 , 1 3 6 2 - 6 6 . 1 1 6 S e e , e . g . , G o l d m a n v . U n i t e s S t a t e s , 3 1 6 U . S . 1 2 9 , 1 3 5 - 3 6 ( 1 9 4 2 ) ( d e c l i n i n g t o o v e r r u l e O l m s t e a d ) ; G o l d s t e i n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 1 6 U . S . 1 1 4 , 1 2 1 - 2 2 ( 1 9 4 2 ) ( F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t d i d n o t a p p l y t o w i r e t a p p i n g b u t e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f ' 6 0 5 w a s i n a d m i s s i b l e ) ; s e e a l s o S i l v e r m a n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 6 5 U . S . 5 0 5 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ( u s e o f s p i k e m i k e w h i c h p e n e t r a t e d p a r t y w a l l a n d t u r n e d h e a t i n g s y s t e m s e r v i n g p e t i t i o n e r s ' p r e m i s e s i n t o a Ac o n d u c t o r o f s o u n d @ w a s a t r e s p a s s a n d t h e r e f o r e a s e a r c h u n d e r t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t ) ; I r v i n e v . C a l i f o r n i a , 3 4 7 U . S . 1 2 8 , 1 3 1 - 3 2 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ( p o l i c e e n t r i e s i n t o h o m e t o i n s t a l l m i c r o p h o n e i n c l o s e t a n d i n a h a l l w a s a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t ) .



telephone booth to record calls being made by Charles Katz.117 Katz was convicted of violating section 1084 of the United States Code, which makes it a crime to use facilities of interstate commerce to transmit wagering information.118

T h e c o n v i c t i o n w a s b a s e d o n s i x t a p e r e c o r d i n g s , a v e r a g i n g t h r e e m i n u t e s e a c h , o f h i s e n d o f t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s p l a c e d f r o m t h r e e p u b l i c p h o n e b o o t h s . T h e r e c o r d i n g s w e r e o b t a i n e d . . . b y m e a n s o f a n e l e c t r o n i c l i s t e n i n g d e v i c e a t -t a c h e d t o t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e b o o t h s ; t h e r e w a s n o p h y s i c a l p e n e t r a t i o n o f t h e . . . b o o t h . . . . . T h e e a v e s d r o p p i n g w a s c o n d u c t e d o n l y a f t e r a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t K a t z r e g u l a r l y u s e d t h e s e p h o n e s t o c a l l a k n o w n g a m b l e r . N o e f f o r t w a s m a d e , h o w e v e r , t o o b t a i n j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r t h e e a v e s d r o p p i n g . 1 1 9

Katz raised two issues in his appeal, both of which involved the relationship between the Fourth Amendment and a Aconstitutionally protected area.@120 The Court declined to accept his formulation, explaining that the resolution of AFourth Amendment problems is not . . . promoted by incanta-tion of the phrase `constitutionally protected area.'@121 The ma-jority went on to announce a new Fourth Amendment standard:

[ T ] h e p a r t i e s h a v e a t t a c h e d g r e a t s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h e . . . t e l e p h o n e b o o t h f r o m w h i c h t h e p e t i t i o n e r p l a c e d h i s c a l l s . T h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s . . . a r g u e d t h a t t h e b o o t h w a s a ` c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d a r e a . ' T h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s m a i n t a i n e d . . . t h a t i t w a s n o t . B u t t h i s e f f o r t . . . d e f l e c t s a t t e n t i o n f r o m t h e p r o b l e m p r e s e n t e d b y t h i s c a s e . F o r t h e

1 1 7 K a t z v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 8 9 U . S . 3 4 7 , 3 4 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . 1 1 8 S e e i d . a t 3 4 8 - 4 9 . 1 1 9 E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e , 8 2 H A R V . L . R E V . 1 8 7 , 1 8 7 ( 1 9 6 8 ) 1 2 0 S e e 3 8 9 U . S . a t 3 5 0 - 5 1 . T o t h i s p o i n t i n h i s t o r y , F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t v i o l a t i o n s o c c u r r e d o n l y w h e n t h e r e w a s a p h y s i c a l t r e s p a s s o n t o a Ac o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d a r e a . @ S e e , e . g . , E r i k G . L u n a , S o v e r e i g n t y a n d S u s p i c i o n , 4 8 D U K E L . J . 7 8 7 , 7 9 3 n . 2 0 ( 1 9 9 9 ) . 1 2 1 3 8 9 U . S . a t 3 5 0 .


F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t s p e o p l e , n o t p l a c e s . W h a t a p e r s o n k n o w i n g l y e x p o s e s t o t h e p u b l i c , e v e n i n h i s o w n h o m e o r o f f i c e , i s n o t a s u b j e c t o f F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t i o n . B u t w h a t h e s e e k s t o p r e s e r v e a s p r i v a t e , e v e n i n a n a r e a a c c e s s i b l e t o t h e p u b l i c , m a y b e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d . 1 2 2

The majority then overruled Olmstead, explaining that Aonce it is recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects peopleCand not simply `areas'Cagainst unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes clear that the reach of that Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.@123 In a concurrence, Justice Harlan articulated the standard that has been used to implement the Katz holding:124

A s t h e C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n s t a t e s , At h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p r o -t e c t s p e o p l e , n o t p l a c e s . @ T h e q u e s t i o n . . . i s w h a t p r o t e c -t i o n i t a f f o r d s t o t h o s e p e o p l e . . . . M y u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e r u l e t h a t h a s e m e r g e d f r o m p r i o r d e c i s i o n s i s t h a t t h e r e i s a t w o f o l d r e q u i r e m e n t , f i r s t t h a t a p e r s o n h a v e e x h i b i t e d a n a c t u a l ( s u b j e c t i v e ) e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y a n d , s e c o n d , t h a t t h e e x p e c t a t i o n b e o n e t h a t s o c i e t y i s p r e p a r e d t o r e c o g n i z e a s Ar e a s o n a b l e . @ T h u s a m a n ' s h o m e i s , f o r m o s t p u r p o s e s , a p l a c e w h e r e h e e x p e c t s p r i v a c y . . . . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n t h e o p e n w o u l d n o t b e p r o t e c t e d a g a i n s t b e i n g o v e r h e a r d , f o r t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w o u l d b e u n r e a s o n a b l e . 1 2 5

It is important to note that Justice Harlan interpreted the 1 2 2 I d . a t 3 5 1 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . 1 2 3 I d . a t 3 5 3 . 1 2 4 T h e C o u r t a d o p t e d h i s Ar e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y @ s t a n d a r d i n T e r r y v . O h i o , 3 9 2 U . S . 1 , 9 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , a n d h a s a p p l i e d i t e v e r s i n c e . S e e i n f r a S e c t i o n I . A . 4 . 1 2 5 I d . a t 3 6 1 ( H a r l a n , J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) .



majority's opinion as holding Aonly@ (i) that a telephone booth is an area in which one Ahas a constitutionally protected reason-able expectation of privacy@; (ii) that electronic invasions, as well as physical invasions, of such an area can violate the Fourth Amendment; and (iii) that the invasion of a Aconstitu-tionally protected area@ without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable.126 His standard therefore implicitly incorporates the spatially-based conception of privacy that had prevailed since Olmstead.127

1 2 6 I d . a t 3 6 0 - 6 1 . 1 2 7 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . T h i s i s e v i d e n t i n h i s c o m m e n t t h a t t h e r u l e h e c i t e s Ae m e r g e d f r o m p r i o r d e c i s i o n s ' @; s u p r a n o t e 1 2 0 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . T h o s e d e c i s i o n s w e r e , b y n e c e s s i t y , b a s e d o n O l m s t e a d ' s t r e s -p a s s d o c t r i n e .


4. Other technology128

In United States v. Knotts,129 the Supreme Court applied Katz to hold that Athe warrantless monitoring of an electronic tracking device (Abeeper@) inside a container of chemicals did not violate the Fourth Amendment when it revealed no infor-mation that could not have been obtained through visual sur-veillance.@130 The Court found that the information provided by the beeper was nothing more than what the officers could have learned by following the vehicle carrying the container as it traveled to a private cabin:131

A p e r s o n t r a v e l l i n g i n a n a u t o m o b i l e o n p u b l i c t h o r o u g h -f a r e s h a s n o r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n h i s m o v e -m e n t s . . . . W h e n P e t s c h e n t r a v e l l e d . . . h e v o l u n t a r i l y c o n -v e y e d t o a n y o n e w h o w a n t e d t o l o o k t h e f a c t t h a t h e w a s t r a v e l l i n g o v e r p a r t i c u l a r r o a d s i n a p a r t i c u l a r d i r e c t i o n , t h e f a c t o f w h a t e v e r s t o p s h e m a d e , a n d t h e f a c t o f h i s f i n a l

1 2 8 T h e d i s c u s s i o n o f S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e s i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s s e l e c t i v e : I t i s l i m i t e d t o c a s e s t h a t h a v e d e a l t w i t h t h e u s e o f n e w c o m m u n i c a t i v e t e c h n o l o g i e s , a s d e f i n e d i n s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . T h e C o u r t h a s u s e d t h e K a t z s t a n d a r d t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r a w i d e v a r i e t y o f p o l i c e c o n d u c t c o n s t i t u t e s a As e a r c h @ u n d e r t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t . S e e , e . g . , F l o r i d a v . R i l e y , 4 8 8 U . S . 4 4 5 , 4 5 0 - 5 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( n o t a s e a r c h f l y o v e r g r e e n h o u s e i n a h e l i c o p t e r a n d o b s e r v e m a r i j u a n a p l a n t s t h r o u g h g a p s i n i t s r o o f ) ; C a l i f o r n i a v . C i r a o l o , 4 7 6 U . S . 2 0 7 , 2 1 3 -1 4 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( n o t a s e a r c h f o r p o l i c e t o f l y o v e r b a c k y a r d i n c o m m e r c i a l a i r s p a c e a n d v i e w m a r i j u a n a b e i n g g r o w n t h e r e ) ; D o w C h e m i c a l C o . v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 4 7 6 U . S . 2 2 7 , 2 3 9 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( n o t a s e a r c h t o f l y o v e r c h e m i c a l p l a n t a n d p h o t o g r a p h p r e m i s e s ) . T h e At e c h n o l o g i e s @ a t i s s u e i n t h e s e c a s e s w e r e s i m p l y t o o l s p o l i c e u s e d t o g a i n a f a v o r a b l e p h y s i c a l v a n t a g e p o i n t f r o m w h i c h t o m a k e o b s e r v a t i o n s w i t h t h e u n a i d e d , o r a i d e d , n a k e d e y e ; t h e s e c a s e s d i d n o t i n v o l v e t h e t y p e o f p e r v a s i v e , a u t o n o m o u s t e c h n o l o g i e s a n a l y z e d i n t h i s a r t i c l e . S e e i n f r a S e c t i o n I I . 1 2 9 4 6 0 U . S . 2 7 6 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . 1 3 0 U n i t e d S t a t e s v . K a r o , 4 6 8 U . S . 7 0 5 , 7 0 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . 1 3 1 O f f i c e r s s u s p e c t e d K n o t t s a n d o t h e r s o f b u y i n g c h e m i c a l s a n d u s i n g t h e m t o m a n u f a c t u r e Ai l l i c i t d r u g s . @ S e e K n o t t s , 4 6 0 U . S . a t 2 7 7 - 7 8 . T h e y t h e r e f o r e i n s t a l l e d t h e b e e p e r i n a c a n o f c h e m i c a l s a n d u s e d i t t o m o n i t o r D a r r y l P e t s c h e n a s h e d r o v e t h e c a n t o a c a b i n o w n e d b y K n o t t s . S e e i d . a t 2 7 8 - 7 9 .



d e s t i n a t i o n w h e n h e e x i t e d f r o m p u b l i c r o a d s o n t o p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y . . . . K n o t t s , a s t h e o w n e r o f t h e c a b i n . . . t o w h i c h P e t s c h e n d r o v e , u n d o u b t e d l y h a d t h e t r a d i t i o n a l e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y . . . i n s o f a r a s t h e c a b i n w a s c o n c e r n e d . . . . B u t n o s u c h e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y e x t e n d e d t o t h e v i s u a l o b s e r v a t i o n o f P e t s c h e n ' s a u t o m o b i l e a r r i v i n g o n h i s p r e m i s -e s a f t e r l e a v i n g a p u b l i c h i g h w a y . 1 3 2

The Court reached the opposite conclusion in United States v. Karo.133 When DEA agents learned that James Karo and his associates had ordered fifty gallons of ether, the agents con-cluded that the chemical would be used to manufacture drugs.134 They arranged to have a beeper installed in one of the cans of ether and used it to track Karo as he drove the cans to his house.135 On two occasions, they used the signal from the beeper to determine that (i) it was still in Karo's house and (ii) it had been moved to the home of one of his associates.136 The Supreme Court applied Katz to hold that these latter uses violated the Fourth Amendment:

[ P ] r i v a t e r e s i d e n c e s a r e p l a c e s i n w h i c h t h e i n d i v i d u a l . . . e x p e c t s p r i v a c y . . . a n d t h a t e x p e c t a t i o n i s p l a i n l y o n e t h a t s o c i e t y i s p r e p a r e d t o r e c o g n i z e a s j u s t i f i a b l e . . . . I n t h i s c a s e , h a d a D E A a g e n t t h o u g h t i t u s e f u l t o e n t e r t h e T a o s r e s i d e n c e t o v e r i f y t h a t t h e e t h e r w a s a c t u a l l y i n t h e h o u s e a n d h a d h e d o n e s o s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y a n d w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t , t h e r e i s l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e e n g a g e d i n a n u n r e a -s o n a b l e s e a r c h w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t . F o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e A m e n d m e n t , t h e r e s u l t i s t h e s a m e w h e r e , w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t , t h e G o v e r n m e n t s u r -r e p t i t i o u s l y e m p l o y s a n e l e c t r o n i c d e v i c e t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i t c o u l d n o t h a v e o b t a i n e d b y o b s e r v a t i o n

1 3 2 I d . a t 2 8 1 - 8 2 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . 1 3 3 4 6 8 U . S . 7 0 5 , ( 1 9 8 4 ) . 1 3 4 S e e i d . a t 7 0 8 - 0 9 . 1 3 5 S e e i d . 1 3 6 S e e i d .


f r o m o u t s i d e t h e c u r t i l a g e o f t h e h o u s e . 1 3 7

The Court reached a similar conclusion in Kyllo v. United States,138 its most recent parsing of the Katz standard. The issue in Kyllo was whether Athe use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home constitutes a `search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.@139 Federal agents who suspected Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home used a thermal imager to detect heat signatures in his home and garage:

T h e s c a n . . . t o o k o n l y a f e w m i n u t e s a n d w a s p e r f o r m e d f r o m . . . A g e n t E l l i o t t ' s v e h i c l e a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t f r o m t h e f r o n t o f t h e h o u s e a n d a l s o f r o m t h e s t r e e t i n b a c k o f t h e h o u s e . T h e s c a n s h o w e d t h a t t h e r o o f o v e r t h e g a r a g e a n d a s i d e w a l l o f p e t i t i o n e r ' s h o m e w e r e r e l a t i v e l y h o t c o m p a r e d t o t h e r e s t o f t h e h o m e a n d s u b s t a n t i a l l y w a r m e r t h a n n e i g h b o r i n g h o m e s i n t h e t r i p l e x . A g e n t E l l i o t t c o n c l u d e d t h a t p e t i t i o n e r w a s u s i n g h a l i d e l i g h t s t o g r o w m a r i j u a n a i n h i s h o u s e , w h i c h i n d e e d h e w a s . 1 4 0

Indicted for manufacturing marijuana, Kyllo moved to suppress the results of the thermal imaging on the grounds that the scan was a warrantless search conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment.141 He eventually pled guilty while reserving the right to pursue this issue on appeal.142 The Ninth Circuit ultimately rejected Kyllo's argument, holding that he had Ashown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home@

1 3 7 I d . a t 7 1 4 - 1 5 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . 1 3 8 5 3 3 U . S . 2 7 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . 1 3 9 K y l l o , 5 3 3 U . S . a t 2 9 . 1 4 0 I d . a t 3 0 . 1 4 1 S e e i d . a t 3 0 . 1 4 2 S e e i d .



and that Athere was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the imager `did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life,' only `amorphous Ahot spots@ on the roof and exte-rior wall.'@143 The Supreme Court reversed:144

[ T ] h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t d r a w s Aa f i r m l i n e a t t h e e n t r a n c e t o t h e h o u s e . @ T h a t l i n e . . . m u s t b e n o t o n l y f i r m b u t a l s o b r i g h t C w h i c h r e q u i r e s c l e a r s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h o s e m e t h o d s o f s u r v e i l l a n c e t h a t r e q u i r e a w a r r a n t . W h i l e i t i s c e r t a i n l y p o s s i b l e t o c o n c l u d e f r o m t h e v i d e o t a p e o f t h e t h e r m a l i m a g -i n g t h a t o c c u r r e d i n t h i s c a s e t h a t n o As i g n i f i c a n t @ c o m p r o m i s e o f t h e h o m e o w n e r ' s p r i v a c y h a s o c c u r r e d , w e m u s t t a k e t h e l o n g v i e w , f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t f o r w a r d . AT h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t i s t o b e c o n s t r u e d i n t h e l i g h t o f w h a t w a s d e e m e d a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e w h e n i t w a s a d o p t e d , a n d i n a m a n n e r w h i c h w i l l c o n s e r v e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s a s w e l l a s t h e i n t e r e s t s a n d r i g h t s o f i n d i v i d u a l c i t i z e n s . @ W h e r e , a s h e r e , t h e G o v e r n m e n t u s e s a d e v i c e t h a t i s n o t i n g e n e r a l p u b l i c u s e , t o e x p l o r e d e t a i l s o f t h e h o m e t h a t w o u l d p r e v i o u s l y h a v e b e e n u n k n o w a b l e w i t h o u t p h y s i c a l i n t r u s i o n , t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e i s a As e a r c h @ a n d i s p r e s u m p t i v e l y u n r e a s o n a b l e w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t . 1 4 5

1 4 3 I d . a t 3 1 . 1 4 4 S e e i d . a t 4 1 . 1 4 5 I d . a t 4 0 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ( q u o t i n g C a r r o l l v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 6 7 U . S . 1 3 2 , 1 4 9 ( 1 9 2 5 ) ) . L i k e J u s t i c e T a f t , t h i s p o s t - O l m s t e a d C o u r t q u o t e s C a r r o l l v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 6 7 U . S . 1 3 2 , 1 4 9 ( 1 9 2 5 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n i s e m b e d d e d i n t i m e , i . e . , i s b a s e d o n w h a t w a s d e e m e d u n r e a s o n a b l e w h e n i t w a s a d o p t e d . S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . J u s t i c e T a f t u s e d t h e q u o t e d p a s s a g e t o b u t t r e s s h i s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t w i r e t a p p i n g u n a c c o m p a n i e d b y p h y s i c a l i n t r u s i o n i n t o t h e h o m e w a s n o t a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t . S e e s u p r a n o t e 1 0 5 . I n K y l l o , J u s t i c e S c a l i a u s e d i t t o s u p p o r t h i s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t e c h n o l o g y c a n n o t b e u t i l i z e d a s a s u b s t i t u t e f o r p h y s i c a l i n t r u s i o n . S e e K y l l o , 5 3 3 U . S . a t 4 0 .


As these cases demonstrate, despite its disavowal of a spatial conception of privacy in Katz, the Supreme Court continues to predicate Fourth Amendment privacy upon spatial constraints, that is, upon the occurrence of some type of Aintrusion@ into a private Aplace.@ In Kyllo and Karo, the Aintrusion@ is not a physical trespass; it results from the use of technology to extract information that would otherwise be unavailable from a private space. We return to this issue in Section I.C.

B. Third-party records Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the

next step which must be taken . . . for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right Ato be let alone.@146

In 1890 Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis published their famous article, The Right to Privacy.147 Unlike the Fourth Amendment right discussed above,148 the Warren-Brandeis right (i) was directed at private parties and (ii) did not involve a zero-sum approach to privacy.149 Warren and Brandeis were reacting to changes in society and in technology.150 America was increasingly industrial and ur-banized.151 The urban population provided a market for the new Ayellow journalism;@ newspapers shifted from political coverage

1 4 6 S a m u e l W a r r e n & L o u i s B r a n d e i s , T h e R i g h t t o P r i v a c y , 4 H A R V . L . R E V . 1 9 3 ( 1 8 9 0 ) ( q u o t i n g T H O M A S M . C O O L E Y , T H E L A W O F T O R T S 2 9 ( 2 d e d . 1 8 8 8 ) ) , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / w w w . l o u i s v i l l e . e d u / l i b r a r y / l a w / b r a n d e i s / p r i v a c y . h t m l ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 ) . 1 4 7 S e e i d . 1 4 8 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 1 4 9 S e e W a r r e n & B r a n d e i s , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 1 5 0 S e e G o r m l e y , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 3 5 0 . 1 5 1 S e e i d .



to emphasizing A`sin, sex and violence.'@152 Advances in photography, such as Eastman's hand-held camera, let ama-teurs to take Acandid@ photographs, often clandestinely.153 These and other forces combined to create a culture in which journalists spied on the socially-prominent,154 in which individ-uals had no recourse if their likeness was used for commercial purposes without their knowledge or permission,155 and in which the use of eavesdropping devices threatened Ato make good the prediction that `what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops.'@156 The Fourth Amendment offered no protection from these activities because it only applies to state action.157 The Aevils@ Warren and Brandeis were addressing resulted from the efforts of private citizens, which is why they ultimately cast their right to privacy as a tort: Those whose privacy was violated could bring an Aaction of tort for damages in all cases@ and could seek an injunction Aa very limited class of cases.@158 This aspect of

1 5 2 I d . a t 1 3 5 1 ( q u o t i n g E D W I N E M E R Y & M I C H A E L C . E M E R Y , T H E P R E S S

A N D A M E R I C A : A N I N T E R P R E T A T I V E H I S T O R Y O F T H E M A S S M E D I A 3 4 9 - 5 0 ( 3 d e d . 1 9 7 2 ) ) . 1 5 3 S e e S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 2 4 . U n t i l 1 8 8 4 , w h e n E a s t m a n i n v e n t e d h i s h a n d - h e l d c a m e r a , p h o t o g r a p h y Aw a s s o c u m b e r s o m e a n d t h e s i t t i n g s s o p r o l o n g e d t h a t . . . n o o n e ' s i m a g e w a s c a p t u r e d w i t h o u t t h e i r f u l l y k n o w i n g i t . @ I d . E a s t m a n ' s i n v e n t i o n m a d e i t p o s s i b l e , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , f o r a s t r a n g e r t o p h o t o g r a p h s o m e o n e w i t h o u t t h e i r k n o w l e d g e o r p e r m i s s i o n . S e e i d . W h i l e w e a r e a c c u s t o m e d t o t h i s , v e r y f e w p e o p l e i n t h e y e a r s l e a d i n g u p t o E a s t m a n ' s i n v e n t i o n w o u l d e v e r h a v e s e e n a n i m a g e o f t h e m s e l v e s : M i r r o r s w e r e n o t c o m m o n i n A m e r i c a n h o u s e h o l d s , a n d o n l y t h e r i c h c o u l d a f f o r d t o h a v e p o r t r a i t s p a i n t e d . S e e i d . 1 5 4 S e e W a r r e n & B r a n d e i s , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . ( AI n s t a n t a n e o u s p h o t o g r a p h s a n d n e w s p a p e r e n t e r p r i s e h a v e i n v a d e d t h e s a c r e d p r e c i n c t s o f p r i v a t e a n d d o m e s t i c l i f e . @) . 1 5 5 S e e S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 3 8 . 1 5 6 S e e W a r r e n & B r a n d e i s , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . T h e c o n c e r n h e r e i s w i t h Ap r i v a t e @ e a v e s d r o p p i n g , r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e o f f i c i a l a c t i v i t y a t i s s u e i n O l m s t e a d . 1 5 7 S e e , e . g . , P o e v . U l l m a n , 3 6 7 U . S . 4 9 7 , 5 4 9 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . 1 5 8 W a r r e n & B r a n d e i s , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d .


the Warren-Brandeis right is relevant to the present discussion because it represents an early attempt to deal with the impact technology has upon Ainformational privacy,@ i.e., with an individual's ability to exercise some control over how the pri-vate sector gathers, disseminates and uses personal informa-tion.159 Warren and Brandeis were reacting, as noted earlier, to late nineteenth-century technology: improved printing and photograph reproduction; hand-held cameras; bugs and other eavesdropping devices. These and other technologies trans-formed personal information into a commodity; the press in prior eras had published information about Anotables,@ but they were usually able to control the information that went to the press.160 The proliferation of informational technologies and attendant demand for information that arose at the end of the nineteenth century changed all this; the socially- and political-ly-prominent were obvious targets,161 but anyone could find that their control over their image or their personal information had been compromised.162

( n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . 1 5 9 S e e , e . g . , N i a l l W a t e r s , P e r s o n a l P r i v a c y a n d P o p u l a r U b i q u i t o u s T e c h n o l o g y , U b i C o n f 2 0 0 4 ( L o n d o n ) , h t t p : / / w w w . u c l i c . u c l . a c . u k / p r o j e c t s / u b i c o n f / m a t e r i a l s / P a p e r s / N i a l l % 2 0 W i n t e r s . p d f ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( i n f o r m a t i o n a l p r i v a c y i s t h e a b i l i t y o f A i n d i v i d u a l s , g r o u p s o r i n s t i t u t i o n s t o d e t e r m i n e w h e n , h o w a n d t o w h a t e x t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e m i s c o m m u n i c a t e d t o o t h e r s ' @) ( q u o t i n g A L A N W E S T I N , P R I V A C Y

A N D F R E E D O M 7 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ) ; s e e a l s o A l a n F . W e s t i n , S o c i a l a n d P o l i t i c a l D i m e n s i o n s o f P r i v a c y , 5 9 J . O F S O C I A L I S S U E S 4 3 1 , 4 3 1 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( p r i v a c y a s Aa s t h e c l a i m o f a n i n d i v i d u a l t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f s h o u l d b e k n o w n t o o t h e r s . . . . T h i s , a l s o , i n v o l v e s . . . w h a t u s e s w i l l b e m a d e o f i t b y o t h e r s @) . S e e g e n e r a l l y G o r m l e y , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 3 5 0 . 1 6 0 S e e , e . g . , M I C H A E L S C H U D S O N , D I S C O V E R I N G T H E N E W S : A S O C I A L

H I S T O R Y O F A M E R I C A N N E W S P A P E R S 1 2 - 5 7 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . S e e g e n e r a l l y F R E D E R I C K H U D S O N , J O U R N A L I S M I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S F R O M 1 6 9 0 - 1 8 7 2 ( 1 8 7 3 ) . 1 6 1 S e e , e . g . , i d . a t 1 3 5 2 n . 8 4 ( p r e s s h o u n d e d P r e s i d e n t G r o v e r C l e v e -l a n d o n h i s h o n e y m o o n ) . 1 6 2 S e e S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 2 5 , 1 3 8 -



Warren and Brandeis faced difficult conceptual difficulties in articulating their new right to informational privacy. One goes to the essence of the principle. The Fourth Amendment assumes a zero-sum conception of privacy in which only two states exist: private or not-private. When Crown officers burst into Entick's home and rummaged through his rooms and box-es, they annihilated the privacy of those spaces; what had been private was now not-private. The conduct with which Warren and Brandeis was concerned was very different; it typically involved capturing and exploiting information that was in the public domain, i.e., photographs and descriptions of the activi-ties of the socially- or politically elite.163 Since those activities occurred in publicCeither in public spaces or in homes to which members of the public had been invitedCthere was no compro-mise of information that was secluded, spatially or otherwise from observation. As Warren and Brandeis recognized, what they were concerned about was much more analogous to a property right than to a privacy right; the goal, after all, was to control the collection, dissemination and use of information about an individual.164 For various reasons, Warren and Brandeis ultimately chose to style the right for which they argued as a right to privacy, not a property right.165 As we shall see in Section III, the same issues arise, albeit in different guises, from our experience with late twentieth-century and early twenty-first century technology. 3 9 . W a r r e n a n d B r a n d e i s h a v e b e e n a c c u s e d o f b e i n g e l i t i s t , a n d t h e y w e r e p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t i n t r u s i o n s i n t o t h e p r i v a c y o f t h e Au p p e r - c r u s t , @ b o t h b e c a u s e t h e y b e l o n g t o t h a t s o c i e t y a n d b e c a u s e m e m b e r s o f t h a t s o c i e t y w e r e p r i m a r y t a r g e t s f o r y e l l o w j o u r n a l i s t s . S e e i d . a t 1 3 5 - 3 6 . 1 6 3 S e e i d . a t 1 2 1 - 2 2 . 1 6 4 S e e i d . a t 1 2 6 ; s e e a l s o W a r r e n & B r a n d e i s , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . ( A[ T ] h e l e g a l d o c t r i n e s r e l a t i n g t o i n f r a c t i o n s o f w h a t i s o r d i -n a r i l y t e r m e d t h e c o m m o n - l a w r i g h t t o i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d a r t i s t i c p r o p e r t y a r e , i t i s b e l i e v e d , b u t i n s t a n c e s a n d a p p l i c a t i o n s o f a g e n e r a l r i g h t t o p r i v a c y , w h i c h p r o p e r l y u n d e r s t o o d a f f o r d a r e m e d y f o r t h e e v i l s u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . @) . 1 6 5 S e e i d . a t 1 2 6 ; s e e a l s o W a r r e n & B r a n d e i s , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . .


Section II reviews some pertinent technologies, and in Section III we consider whether this concern with controlling personal information that has been released into the public domain can be reconciled with Fourth Amendment principles. But first we need to review another strand of Supreme Court doctrine: deci-sions dealing with the Fourth Amendment's applicability to third-party records. In the decade after Katz, the Supreme Court twice considered whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the government's accessing records generated by, and held by, a third-party, i.e., by someone whom the records concern but who had no role in their creation. In United States v. Miller,166 Miller, who had been indicted on tax charges, moved to suppress records concerning his bank account; federal agents had obtained the records by using a grand jury subpoena, not a warrant.167 Miller invoked Boyd,168 claiming that the agents had Aimproperly circumvented@ his Fourth Amendment rights.169 The district court denied the motion; the Fifth Circuit reversed because it found that the government had violated Boyd.170 The Supreme Court disagreed: AWe find that there was no intrusion into any area in which respondent had a protected Fourth Amendment interest and that the District Court therefore cor-rectly denied respondent's motion to suppress.@171 This post-Katz Court cited a pre-Katz opinion for the proposition that

An o i n t e r e s t l e g i t i m a t e l y p r o t e c t e d b y t h e F o u r t h

1 6 6 4 2 5 U . S . 4 3 5 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . 1 6 7 M i l l e r , 4 2 5 U . S . a t 4 3 7 - 3 9 . 1 6 8 S e e s u p r a n o t e s 3 8 - 3 9 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 1 6 9 I d . a t 4 3 8 - 3 9 . 1 7 0 S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M i l l e r , 5 0 0 F . 2 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 7 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) , r e -v e r s e d 4 2 5 U . S . 4 3 5 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ( AT h e v e n e r a b l e B o y d d o c t r i n e s t i l l r e t a i n s i t s v i t a l i t y ; t h e g o v e r n m e n t m a y n o t c a v a l i e r l y c i r c u m v e n t B o y d ' s p r e c i o u s p r o t e c t i o n b y f i r s t r e q u i r i n g a t h i r d p a r t y b a n k t o c o p y a l l o f i t s d e p o s i t o r s ' p e r s o n a l c h e c k s a n d t h e n , w i t h a n i m p r o p e r i n v o c a t i o n o f l e g a l p r o c e s s , c a l l i n g u p o n t h e b a n k t o a l l o w i n s p e c t i o n a n d r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h o s e c o p i e s . @) . 1 7 1 M i l l e r , 4 2 5 U . S . a t 4 4 0 .



A m e n d m e n t @ i s i m p l i c a t e d b y g o v e r n m e n t a l i n v e s t i g a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s u n l e s s t h e r e i s a n i n t r u s i o n i n t o a z o n e o f p r i v a c y , i n t o At h e s e c u r i t y a m a n r e l i e s u p o n w h e n h e p l a c e s h i m s e l f o r h i s p r o p e r t y w i t h i n a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d a r e a . @1 7 2

The Miller Court also noted that Athe documents subpoenaed here are not respondent's `private papers.' Unlike the claimant in Boyd, respondent can assert neither ownership nor posses-sion. Instead, these are the business records of the banks.@173 Three years later, the Court decided Smith v. Maryland.174 Smith was the Aother half@ of KatzCthe issue was Awhether the installation and use of a pen register,@ which captures the numbers dialed on a telephone, Aconstitutes a `search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.175 After she was robbed, Patricia McDonough began receiving Athreatening and obscene phone calls from a man identifying himself as the robber.@176 Police suspicion focused on Michael Lee Smith as the robber, and the

t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y , a t p o l i c e r e q u e s t , i n s t a l l e d a p e n r e g i s t e r a t i t s c e n t r a l o f f i c e s t o r e c o r d t h e n u m b e r s d i a l e d f r o m t h e t e l e p h o n e a t [ h i s ] h o m e . T h e p o l i c e d i d n o t g e t a w a r r a n t o r c o u r t o r d e r b e f o r e h a v i n g t h e p e n r e g i s t e r i n s t a l l e d . T h e r e g i s t e r r e v e a l e d t h a t o n M a r c h 1 7 a c a l l w a s p l a c e d f r o m [ h i s ] h o m e t o M c D o n o u g h ' s p h o n e . O n t h e b a s i s o f t h i s a n d o t h e r e v i d e n c e , t h e p o l i c e o b t a i n e d a w a r r a n t t o s e a r c h [ S m i t h ' s ] r e s i d e n c e . T h e s e a r c h r e v e a l e d t h a t a p a g e i n [ h i s ] p h o n e b o o k w a s t u r n e d d o w n t o t h e n a m e a n d n u m b e r o f P a t r i c i a M c D o n o u g h ; t h e p h o n e b o o k w a s s e i z e d . 1 7 7

1 7 2 I d . ( q u o t i n g H o f f a v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 8 5 U . S . 2 9 3 , 3 0 1 - 0 2 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ) . 1 7 3 I d . ; s e e s u p r a n o t e s E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . - E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 1 7 4 4 4 2 U . S . 7 3 5 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . 1 7 5 S m i t h , 4 4 2 U . S . a t 7 3 6 . 1 7 6 I d . a t 7 3 7 . 1 7 7 I d . ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) .


Arrested and indicted, Smith moved to suppress A`all fruits derived from the pen register'@ on the grounds that its installa-tion and use was a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.178 The trial court denied the motion and a divided Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.179 The Smith Court began its opinion by reviewing Katz and noting that the standard used to implement Katz is the two-pronged test Justice Harlan enunciated in his concurring opin-ion: (i) whether the individual has exhibited a subjective expec-tation of privacy in the thing, place or endeavor; and (ii) wheth-er society is prepared to regard the individual's subjective ex-pectation of privacy, if any, as reasonable.180 The Court found that Smith met neither criterion:

S i n c e t h e p e n r e g i s t e r w a s i n s t a l l e d o n t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y p r o p e r t y a t t h e t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y ' s c e n t r a l o f f i c e s , p e t i t i o n -e r . . . c a n n o t c l a i m t h a t h i s ` p r o p e r t y ' w a s i n v a d e d o r t h a t p o l i c e i n t r u d e d i n t o a ` c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d a r e a . ' P e t i t i o n e r ' s c l a i m . . . i s t h a t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e a b s e n c e o f a t r e s p a s s , t h e S t a t e . . . i n f r i n g e d a ` l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y ' . . . . [ A ] p e n r e g i s t e r d i f f e r s . . . f r o m t h e l i s t e n i n g d e v i c e e m p l o y e d i n K a t z , f o r p e n r e g i s t e r s d o n o t a c q u i r e t h e c o n t e n t s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . . . . [ P ] e t i t i o n e r ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t i t s i n s t a l l a t i o n a n d u s e c o n s t i t u t -e d a ` s e a r c h ' n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t s u p o n a c l a i m t h a t h e h a d a A l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y ' r e g a r d i n g t h e n u m b e r s h e d i a l e d o n h i s p h o n e . [ W ] e d o u b t t h a t p e o p l e i n g e n e r a l e n t e r t a i n a n y a c t u a l e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t h e n u m b e r s t h e y d i a l . A l l t e l e p h o n e u s e r s r e a l i z e t h a t t h e y m u s t ` c o n v e y ' p h o n e n u m b e r s t o t h e t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y , s i n c e i t i s t h r o u g h t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y

1 7 8 I d . 1 7 9 I d . 1 8 0 I d . a t 7 4 0 ; s e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 .



s w i t c h i n g e q u i p m e n t t h a t t h e i r c a l l s a r e c o m p l e t e d . A l l s u b -s c r i b e r s r e a l i z e . . . t h a t t h e p h o n e c o m p a n y h a s f a c i l i t i e s f o r m a k i n g p e r m a n e n t r e c o r d s o f t h e n u m b e r s t h e y d i a l , f o r t h e y s e e a l i s t o f t h e i r l o n g - d i s t a n c e ( t o l l ) c a l l s o n t h e i r m o n t h l y b i l l s . . . . T e l e p h o n e u s e r s , i n s u m , t y p i c a l l y k n o w t h a t t h e y m u s t c o n v e y n u m e r i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e p h o n e c o m p a n y ; t h a t t h e p h o n e c o m p a n y h a s f a c i l i t i e s f o r r e c o r d -i n g t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n ; a n d t h a t t h e p h o n e c o m p a n y d o e s i n f a c t r e c o r d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n f o r a v a r i e t y o f l e g i t i m a t e b u s i -n e s s p u r p o s e s . A l t h o u g h s u b j e c t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s c a n n o t b e s c i e n t i f i c a l l y g a u g e d , i t i s t o o m u c h t o b e l i e v e t h a t t e l e p h o n e s u b s c r i b e r s , u n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , h a r b o r a n y g e n e r a l e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e n u m b e r s t h e y d i a l w i l l r e m a i n s e c r e t . 1 8 1

The Court also (i) rejected Smith's claim that he demonstrated a subjective expectation of privacy by making the calls from his home,182 and (ii) held that even if he could show such a subjec-tive expectation, it is not one society would regard as reason-able: A[E]ven if petitioner did harbor some subjective expecta-tion that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not `one that society is prepared to recognize as Areasonable.@' This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he vol-untarily turns over to third parties@183 The Court cited Miller

1 8 1 I d . a t 7 4 1 - 4 2 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . 1 8 2 S e e i d . a t 7 4 3 :

[ T ] h e s i t e o f t h e c a l l i s i m m a t e r i a l . . . . A l t h o u g h p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n d u c t m a y h a v e b e e n c a l c u l a t e d t o k e e p t h e c o n t e n t s o f h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n p r i v a t e , h i s c o n d u c t w a s n o t a n d c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c a l c u l a t e d t o p r e s e r v e t h e p r i v a c y o f t h e n u m b e r h e d i a l e d . R e g a r d l e s s o f h i s l o c a t i o n , p e t i t i o n e r h a d t o c o n v e y t h a t n u m b e r t o t h e t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y . . . i f h e w i s h e d t o c o m p l e t e h i s c a l l . T h e f a c t t h a t h e d i a l e d t h e n u m b e r o n h i s h o m e p h o n e r a t h e r t h a n o n s o m e o t h e r p h o n e c o u l d m a k e n o c o n c e i v a b l e d i f f e r e n c e , n o r c o u l d a n y s u b s c r i b e r r a t i o n a l l y t h i n k t h a t i t w o u l d .

I d . 1 8 3 I d . a t 7 4 3 - 4 4 ( q u o t i n g K a t z v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 8 9 U . S . 3 4 7 , 3 6 1


for the last statement.184 The Supreme Court has applied the Miller-Smith principle in a variety of cases.185 It summarized the rationale for the principle in United States v. Jacobsen:

[ W ] h e n a n i n d i v i d u a l r e v e a l s p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n t o a n o t h e r , h e a s s u m e s t h e r i s k t h a t h i s c o n f i d a n t w i l l r e v e a l t h a t i n f o r -m a t i o n t o t h e a u t h o r i t i e s , a n d i f t h a t o c c u r s t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t g o v e r n m e n t a l u s e o f t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . O n c e f r u s t r a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y o c c u r s , t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t g o v e r n m e n t a l u s e o f t h e n o w n o n p r i v a t e i n f o r m a -t i o n . . . . T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t i s i m p l i c a t e d o n l y i f t h e a u t h o r i t i e s u s e i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o w h i c h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y h a s n o t a l r e a d y b e e n f r u s t r a t e d . 1 8 6

This brings us back to the Warren-Brandeis issue: If, as the Supreme Court indicates, the Fourth Amendment conception of privacy is zero-sum (i.e., private or not-private), how can indi-viduals have any control over the information they (knowingly, unknowingly, willingly, unwillingly) provide to others? The assumption of risk principle articulated above assumes one has a choice: reveal information and lose privacy or do not reveal information and retain privacy. The Warren-Brandeis article was concerned with disclosures made that were made to other people by chance, i.e., by being in a particular place at a particular time. One could argue that the element of choice is missing, but there is another difficulty with assuming privacy in this context: The complained-of information (photography, description of what someone did) was gathered in an ostenta-tiously public placeCa street, a restaurant, a hotel, etc. It is, after all, inevitable that certain of our actions will occur in ( 1 9 6 7 ) a n d c i t i n g M i l l e r v . U n i t e s S t a t e s , 4 2 5 U . S . 4 3 5 , 4 4 2 - 4 4 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ) . 1 8 4 S e e i d . 1 8 5 S e e , e . g . , C a l i f o r n i a v . G r e e n w o o d , 4 8 6 U . S . 3 5 , 4 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; S . E . C . v . J e r r y T . O ' B r i e n , I n c . , 4 6 7 U . S . 7 3 5 , 7 3 5 - 3 6 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . 1 8 6 4 6 6 U . S . 1 0 9 , 1 1 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) .



public spaces; we cannot insist that our every action is private and must be ignored. The early third-party records casesCSmith and MillerCgo to a different issue. They both concern the privacy of information that was disclosed to a specific party for a specific purpose; the party making the disclosure chooses to reveal the information, but intends that it be a Acontrolled disclosure.@ This issue, which was of relatively minor import in the 1970's when Smith and Miller were decided, becomes extremely important in a world of ubiquitous technology for, as Section II explains, in such a world we interact, necessarily and almost continuously, with systems that gather information, utilize it and share it with other systems. The effect, as Section II explains, is essen-tially to eliminate private places; Section III considers how this could, and should, impact on the Fourth Amendment principles discussed above.

C. Evolution Privacy is a distinctly modern product . . . .187 When we discuss Fourth Amendment privacy, we need to realize first, that it is so far a relatively narrow concept188 and, second, that the conception of privacy itself is a very recent development.

I n e a r l i e r t i m e s , i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e n o t s e e n a s s e p a r a t e f r o m t h e i r f a m i l i e s , s m a l l c o m m u n i t i e s , o r s o c i e t y a s a w h o l e . R a t h e r , t h e y w e r e a p a r t o f t h e i r t r i b e o r s o c i a l g r o u p , a n d t h e y l i v e d i n a n e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e p e o p l e s p e n t m u c h o f

1 8 7 E . L . G o d k i n , T h e R i g h t s o f t h e C i t i z e n I V C T o H i s O w n R e p u t a t i o n , 8 S C R I B N E R ' S M A G . , J u l y , 1 8 9 0 , a t 5 8 a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / c d l . l i b r a r y . c o r n e l l . e d u / c g i b i n / m o a / p a g e v i e w e r ? f r a m e s = 1 & c i t e = h t t p % 3 A % 2 F % 2 F c d l . l i b r a r y . c o r n e l l . e d u % 2 Fc g i b i n % 2 F m o a % 2 F m o a - c g i % 3 F n o t i s i d % 3 D A F R 7 3 7 9 - 0 0 0 8 -7 & c o l l = m o a & v i e w = 5 0 & r o o t = % 2 F m o a % 2 F s c r i % 2 F s c r i 0 0 0 8 % 2 F & t i f = 0 0 0 7 2 . T I F & p a g e n u m = 6 5 . 1 8 8 S e e s u p r a '' I ( A ) - ( B ) .


t h e i r t i m e l i v i n g c l o s e l y t o g e t h e r o r u n d e r t h e w a t c h f u l e y e o f o t h e r s i n t h e i r f a m i l y o r c o m m u n i t y . A l s o , t h e y s p e n t l i t t l e t i m e a l o n e o r t h i n k i n g p r i v a t e t h o u g h t s t h a t m i g h t q u e s t i o n t h e c o m m u n a l p r a c t i c e s a n d p r e s s u r e f o r c o n f o r m i t y i n t h e c o m m u n i t y . 1 8 9

New England colonies had laws prohibiting people from living alone and Aforbade construction of homes beyond half a mile from the meeting house, the center of town. This was . . . the layout of the villages in England that the settlers had left.@190 People, even travelers, shared beds and many colonial homes had Ano ceilings, so sounds could easily be heard from room to room and anybody willing to climb to the roof beams could peer into another room.@191 A[I]in the early 1800s as the population expanded and city life increasingly closed in on the rural and small village communities, there were increased glimmerings of dissatisfaction@ and desires for more privacy.192 These desires prompted the nineteenth-century Supreme Court decisions discussed in Section I.A. and the Warren-Brandeis effort to establish a Acivil@ right to privacy.193 Our interest in, and desire for, privacy increased in the twentieth century, for a variety of reasons.194 That interest seems to have reached new levels in 1 8 9 G I N I G R A H A M S C O T T , M I N D Y O U R O W N B U S I N E S S : T H E B A T T L E F O R P E R S O N -A L P R I V A C Y 2 4 ( 1 9 9 5 ) . 1 9 0 S M I T H , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 0 , 1 7 . 1 9 1 I d . a t 1 9 - 2 0 . 1 9 2 S C O T T , s u p r a n o t e 1 8 9 , a t 3 4 . 1 9 3 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . 1 9 4 S e e S C O T T , s u p r a n o t e 1 8 9 , a t 5 0 :

[ F ] r o m t h e 1 8 5 0 s t h r o u g h t h e 1 9 5 0 s , a n e w c o n c e r n w i t h t h e r i g h t t o p r i v a c y e m e r g e d , b e c a u s e i n a n i n c r e a s i n g l y c o m p l e x , u r b a n i z e d , m u l t i c u l t u r a l s o c i e t y , t h e r e w e r e m o r e a n d m o r e w a y s i n w h i c h o n e ' s p r i v a c y m i g h t b e i n v a d e d b y o t h e r s C f r o m t h e g o v e r n m e n t t o t h e p r e s s a n d a d v e r t i s e r s t o o t h e r c i t i z e n s . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , t h e r e w e r e f e w e r i n f o r m a l c o m m u n i t y w a y s t o d e a l w i t h t h e s e p r o b l e m s . . . .

I d . T h e e x p a n s i o n o f s u r v e i l l a n c e t e c h n o l o g y d u r i n g a n d a f t e r W o r l d W a r I I c r e a t e d i n -c r e a s e d c o n c e r n s a b o u t a l o s s o f p r i v a c y .



the early years of the twenty-first century, given our need to ac-commodate privacy with the realities of the technology discussed in the next section. The Twentieth-century world is vastly different from the Eighteenth-century realities that produced the Fourth Amend-ment. If we are to preserve its spiritCthe desire to maintain an equitable balance between the personal lives of individuals and the needs of law enforcementCwe cannot rely on the letter of the law as it existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopt-ed. We must be flexible and forward-looking. We cannot rely solely on what has been, because what will be, has never been.

B y t h e 1 9 5 0 s , t h e t e c h n o l o g y t h a t e n a b l e d g o v e r n m e n t s u r v e i l l a n c e h a d g r o w n b y e x p o n e n t i a l l e a p s . P a r a b o l i c m i c r o p h o n e s , t r a n s m i t t e r s t h e s i z e o f c i g a r e t t e p a c k s , i n d u c t i o n - c o i l d e v i c e s a n d m i n i a t u r e t e l e v i s i o n t r a n s m i t t e r s m a d e i t p o s s i b l e f o r g o v e r n m e n t a g e n t s , p o l i c e , p r i v a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r s a n d a v e r a g e c i t i z e n s n o o p e r s t o w a t c h , l i s t e n a n d r e c o r d v i r t u a l l y a n y s o u n d o r m o v e m e n t . A c c o m p a n y i n g t h i s p e r f e c t i o n i n t e c h n o l o g y c a m e t h e g r o w i n g u s e o f p r i v a t e d e t e c t i v e s a s s u r r e p t i t i o u s i n f o r m a t i o n - g a t h e r e r s i n b u s i n e s s a n d f a m i l y d i s p u t e s . . . . A t t e m p t s b y t h e s t a t e s t o . . . p r o h i b i t w i r e t a p p i n g w e r e . . . i n e f f e c t i v e . T h e s t a t e s t a t u t e s t e n d e d t o c r e a t e b r o a d e x c e p t i o n s f o r p o l i c e c o n d u c t i n g e a v e s d r o p p i n g . . . . [ T ] h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e s w a s r a r e l y d r a f t e d t o k e e p u p w i t h t h e s w i f t l y - c h a n g i n g t e c h n o l o g y , r e n d e r i n g t h e m q u i c k l y o b s o l e t e . B y t h e t i m e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s e n t e r e d t h e 1 9 6 0 s , m o s t o f t h e a t t e m p t s t o p r o t e c t i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y b y c u r b i n g e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e a t t h e s t a t e l e v e l h a d f a i l e d . T h e 1 9 6 0 s s o o n w i t n e s s e d a n a t i o n a l u p r o a r o v e r t h e u n c h e c k e d a b i l i t y o f g o v e r n m e n t a n d p r i v a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r s t o e a v e s d r o p . . . . I n f l u e n t i a l s c h o l -a r s . . . p r o d u c e d v o l u m e s o f l i t e r a t u r e d e t a i l i n g t h e t h r e a t o f s u r v e i l l a n c e t e c h n o l o g y t o i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y . N e w s p a p e r s a n d p e r i o d i c a l s . . . f e a t u r e d a r t i c l e s . . . d e c r y i n g t h e r u n a w a y u s e o f e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e . . . .

G o r m l e y , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 3 6 3 - 6 4 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . A n d i n h i s S t a t e o f t h e U n i o n a d d r e s s i n 1 9 6 7 , P r e s i d e n t J o h n s o n d e c l a r e d , AW e s h o u l d p r o t e c t w h a t J u s t i c e B r a n d e i s c a l l e d t h e ` r i g h t m o s t v a l u e d b y c i v i l i z e d m e n 'C t h e r i g h t t o p r i v a c y . @ I d . a t 1 3 6 4 ( q u o t i n g T e x t o f M e s s a g e b y P r e s i d e n t J o h n s o n t o C o n g r e s s o n S t a t e o f t h e U n i o n , N . Y . T I M E S , J a n . 1 1 , 1 9 6 7 , a t A 1 6 ) .


II. TECHNOLOGY AUbiquitous technology/computing will permeate all aspects

of our physical world . . . .@195 Olmstead and Katz were products of the same nineteenth-century technology: the telephone.196 The Warren-Brandeis right to privacy was the product of other nineteenth-century technologies: improved printing, mobile photography and pri-vate surveillance techniques.197 At the beginning of the twenty-first century, we occupy an environment that has been changed dramatically by twentieth century technologies; telephone booths like the one Charles Katz used are an endangered spe-cies,198 as is the one-to-one mode of communication he utilized. Our communications are multi-modal; we communicate syn-chronously or asynchronously by voice, text or data, and com-bine modes.199 As everything about our lives becomes more portable, more exposed to scrutiny, we will have to decide how to reconcile the inherent tension between privacy and the need for effective law enforcement. 1 9 5 U b i C o r p : A V i s i o n o f t h e U b i q u i t o u s C o r p o r a t i o n , A c c e n t u r e , a t h t t p : / / w w w . a c c e n t u r e . c o m / x d / x d . a s p ? i t = e n w e b & x d = s e r v i c e s % 5 C t e c h n o l o g y % 5 C t e c h _ u b i c o r p . xm l ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 ) . 1 9 6 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 . 1 9 7 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . 1 9 8 S e e , e . g . , A r c h i v e o f A d d r e s s e s b y A n d y R o o n e y , A n d y R o o n e y ' s P h o n e D i l e m m a ( J a n . 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) , h t t p : / / w w w . c b s n e w s . c o m / s t o r i e s / 2 0 0 5 / 0 1 / 0 7 / 6 0 m i n u t e s / r o o n e y / m a i n 6 6 5 5 2 3 . s h t m l ( AT h e p u b l i c t e l e p h o n e b o o t h s t h a t u s e d t o b e o n e v e r y b i g c i t y s t r e e t c o r n e r a r e r a p i d l y d i s a p p e a r i n g . @) . S e e a l s o O l i v e r L u c a z e a u , L a s t C a l l f o r B r i t a i n ' s L i t t l e R e d T e l e p h o n e B o o t h s , T H E G L O B E & M A I L ( T o r o n t o ) J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , a t A 1 1 ( e x p l a i n i n g t h e g r a d u a l d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f r e d t e l e p h o n e b o o t h s i n B r i t a i n ) . 1 9 9 S e e , e . g . , H i g h l i g h t o f t h e M o n t h : T h e U l t i m a t e V A S E n v i r o n m e n t , C O M V E R S E A N A L Y S T N E W S L E T T E R ( C o m v e r s e , N e w Y o r k , N . Y . ) , D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 , h t t p : / / w w w . c o m v e r s e . c o m / n e w s / n e w s s u b / N E W S L E T T E R 7 . h t m # W h a t ' s % 2 0 N e w :

AT o t a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n @ c r e a t e s a b o r d e r l e s s e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e p e o p l e a r e



A relatively recent Ninth Circuit case illustrates how far we have come from Katz; In re the Application of the U.S. for an Order Authorizing the Roving Interception of Oral Commu-nications200 arose from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) efforts to wiretap a vehicle. More precisely, it resulted from the FBI's efforts to use technology already integrated into a private vehicle to intercept conversations taking place within it.201 As the Ninth Circuit explained, some vehicles are equipped with Atelecommunication devices@ that assist with navigation or with Aemergencies or obtaining road-side assis-tance. Such systems operate via a combination of GPS . . . and cellular technology.@202 The appellant in the case (the Company) operated one such service (the System).203 One feature of the System [let] the Company open a cellular connection to a vehicle and listen to [conversations in] the car.@204 The purpose was to help recover stolen vehicles, but it could also be used to eavesdrop on legitimate conversations carried on in a vehicle

f r e e t o c o m m u n i c a t e i n t h e w a y t h a t i s m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e . . . f o r t h e m . I t e n c o m p a s s e s t h e f u l l r a n g e o f r e a l - t i m e a n d n o n - r e a l - t i m e m u l t i m e d i a c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d m e s s a g i n g s e r v i c e s . A s a r e s u l t , t a l k i n g , v o i c e m e s s a g i n g , e m a i l i n g , t e x t m e s s a g i n g , c h a t t i n g a n d c o n f e r e n c i n g b e c o m e e q u a l l y a c c e s s i b l e o p t i o n s .

I d . ; s e e a l s o P o s t i n g o f A n g u s D a v i s t o O m M a l i k ' s B l o g - A b o u t t h e N e x t G e n e r a t i o n I n t e r n e t , h t t p : / / g i g a o m . c o m / 2 0 0 4 / 1 1 / 2 9 / b u i l d i n g - t h e - p h o n e - p l a t f o r m / ( N o v . 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 ) ( AI P - p o w e r e d t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i l l . . . c h a n g [ e ] t h e w a y p e o p l e . . . u s e t h e t e l e p h o n e . . . . [ T ] h e t w o - p a r t y v o i c e c a l l i n g w i l l s h i f t t o w a r d s m u l t i m o d a l a n d m u l t i - p a r t y c o m m u n i c a t i o n [ s ] . . . . @) . 2 0 0 3 4 9 F . 3 d 1 1 3 2 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . 2 0 1 I d . a t 1 1 3 4 . L a w e n f o r c e m e n t i n s t a l l a t i o n o f l i s t e n i n g d e v i c e s i n v e h i c l e s i s f a r f r o m n o v e l . S e e , e . g . , M a s s i a h v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 7 7 U . S . 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 -0 3 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ( i n 1 9 5 9 , f e d e r a l a g e n t s Ai n s t a l l [ e d ] a S c h m i d t r a d i o t r a n s m i t t e r u n d e r t h e f r o n t s e a t o f [ a c a r ] @ a n d u s e d i t t o l i s t e n i n o n c o n v e r s a t i o n s h e l d b y t h e o c c u p a n t s o f t h e v e h i c l e ) . 2 0 2 I n r e T h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e U . S . f o r a n O r d e r A u t h o r i z i n g t h e R o v i n g I n t e r c e p t i o n o f O r a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n s , 3 4 9 F . 3 d a t 1 1 3 3 . 2 0 3 I d . 2 0 4 I d .


equipped with the System.205 Realizing this, the FBI obtained Aorders requiring the Com-pany to assist in intercepting conversations taking place in a car equipped with the System.@206 The Company complied with the first order but challenged the next, claiming that the district court did not have authority to order the use of its Aequipment, facilities, system, and employees.@207 The district court rejected the challenge and the Company appealed.208 The orders were issued under the federal wiretap statutes: Title III.209 Congress responded to the Katz decision by adopting Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968;210 Title III was intended Ato implement a uniform pro-cedure for conducting constitutionally acceptable electronic sur-veillance.@211 Since it is founded upon the Fourth Amendment, Title III makes it illegal to intercept communications except pursuant to a court order.212 In issuing a Title III order, a court can require Aa provider . . . of wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian or other person@ to provide Atechni-cal assistance necessary to accomplish the interception . . . with a minimum of interference with the services that such service provider, landlord, custodian, or person is according the person

2 0 5 I d . a t 1 1 3 3 - 3 4 . 2 0 6 I d . a t 1 1 3 4 . 2 0 7 I d . a t 1 1 3 4 - 3 5 . 2 0 8 I d . a t 1 1 3 5 . 2 0 9 I d . a t 1 1 3 6 - 3 8 . 2 1 0 S e e T i t l e I I I , P u b . L . N o . 9 0 - 3 5 1 , ' 8 0 2 , 8 2 S t a t . 1 9 7 , 2 1 2 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ; s e e a l s o s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 . C o n g r e s s w a s s p e c i f i c a l l y r e s p o n d i n g t o B e r g e r v . N e w Y o r k , 3 8 8 U . S . 4 1 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . I n B e r g e r , a c o m p a n i o n t o K a t z , t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t b e c a u s e o f t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r i n t r u s i v e n e s s , w i r e t a p p i n g a u t h o r i z a t i o n s m u s t b e c a r e f u l l y c r a f t e d t o s a t i s f y t h e p r o b a b l e c a u s e a n d p a r t i c u l a r i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t . I d . a t 5 5 - 6 4 . 2 1 1 J i e X i u , N o t e , T h e R o l e s O f T h e J u d i c i a r y I n E x a m i n i n g A n d S u p e r -v i s i n g T h e C h a n g i n g L a w s O f E l e c t r o n i c S u r v e i l l a n c e , 2 8 S E T O N H A L L L E G I S . J . 2 2 9 , 2 3 3 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . 2 1 2 I d .



whose communications are to be intercepted.@213 The Company claimed it was not a Aprovider of communication service@ under Title III.214 The Ninth Circuit found it was sub-ject to Title III either as a provider of communications services or as an Aother person@ who could be required to assist law en-forcement in intercepting communications.215 The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, however, because it concluded that the surveillance could not be carried out Awith a minimum of interference with the services@ the Company provided the owner of the vehicle.216 The court found that Aeavesdropping is not performed with `a minimum of interference' if a service is completely shut down as a result of the surveillance.@217 Since officers using the System to eavesdrop shut down its emergency and other functions, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in ordering the Company to cooperate with the FBI.218

2 1 3 1 8 U . S . C . ' 2 5 1 8 ( 4 ) ( 2 0 0 0 ) . 2 1 4 I n r e T h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e U . S . , 3 4 9 F . 3 d a t 1 1 3 9 . 2 1 5 I d . 2 1 6 I d . a t 1 1 4 4 - 4 6 ; s e e a l s o 1 8 U . S . C . ' 2 5 1 8 ( 4 ) . 2 1 7 I d . a t 1 1 4 5 ( q u o t i n g 1 8 U . S . C . ' 2 5 1 8 ( 4 ) ) . 2 1 8 I d . a t 1 1 4 6 . A C a l i f o r n i a l e g i s l a t o r r e s p o n d e d t o t h i s d e c i s i o n b y i n t r o d u c i n g S e n a t e B i l l 1 3 3 0 , w h i c h w o u l d p r o h i b i t Ae a v e s d r o p p i n g i n v o l v i n g a n e m b e d d e d a u t o m o t i v e t e l e m a t i c d e v i c e . @ S e e C o m m i t t e e R e p o r t f o r 2 0 0 3 C a l i f o r n i a S e n a t e B i l l N o . 1 3 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 R e g u l a r S e s s i o n ( J u l y 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 ) [ h e r e i n a f t e r C o m m i t t e e R e p o r t ] ; s e e a l s o C a l i f o r n i a S e n a t e B i l l 1 3 3 0 , a s a m e n d e d J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 . A f t e r t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l b i l l w o u l d p r e c l u d e Al a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s f r o m a p p l y i n g f o r a n o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g i n -t e r c e p t i o n o f e l e c t r o n i c c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t h a t o c c u r r e d b y m e a n s o f a t e c h n o l o g y s u c h a s @ t h e S y s t e m , t h e b i l l w a s r e v i s e d s o i t d o e s n o t Ar e d u c e t h e a b i l i t y o f l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s t o a p p l y f o r a w i r e t a p o r d e r . @ C o m m i t t e e R e p o r t , s u p r a ( A[ B ] y e n a c t i n g a s e r i e s o f p r o h i b i t i o n s i n t h e i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y l a w s . . . w i t h -o u t c o n c u r r e n t l y c r e a t i n g s o m e e x p l i c i t , t h o u g h l i m i t e d , a u t h o r i t y i n t h e w i r e t a p p i n g p r o v i s i o n s , t h i s b i l l r e d u c e d t h e s c o p e o f t h e e x i s t i n g w i r e t a p a u t h o r i t y . @) . A c c o r d i n g t o a c o m m i t t e e r e p o r t , i t r e a f f i r m s

C a l i f o r n i a ' s w i r e t a p p i n g l a w C b u g g i n g b y l a w e n f o r c e m e n t i s p r o h i b i t e d . . . . [ R ] e c o g n i z i n g t h a t e m e r g i n g f o r m s o f t e c h n o l o g y m a y c o m b i n e e l e c t r o n i c


This case highlights issues we will face as technology becomes an increasingly pervasive feature of our lives.219 We have for many decades assumed that a vehicle is a Aprivate@ place; fictional characters often take advantage of the privacy a vehi-cle offers to discuss sensitive matters.220 The privacy of vehicles has, of course, been compromised on occasion;221 but while we might be aware, at some level, that cars could be Abugged,@ we could not imagine that our vehicles would themselves become instruments of surveillance. If cars can become instruments of surveillance, what about our homes? The case discussed above illustrates a trendCthe perva-

c o m m u n i c a t i o n s c a p a b i l i t i e s , t h i s b i l l p r o v i d e s t h a t a c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e , o r a s i m i l a r d e v i c e , m a y n o t b e u s e d t o o v e r h e a r c o n f i d e n t i a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n p e r s o n s w h o a r e n o t u s i n g s o m e f o r m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n t e c h n o l o g y .

I d . O n J u l y 2 , 2 0 0 4 , S . B . 1 3 3 0 w a s w i t h d r a w n f r o m t h e A s s e m b l y C o m m i t t e e o n A p p r o p r i a t i o n s a n d s e t f o r a s e c o n d r e a d i n g . O n A u g u s t 9 , 2 0 0 4 , i t w a s a m e n d e d i n A s s e m b l y . S e e S . B . 1 3 3 0 , h t t p : / / i n f o . s e n . c a . g o v / p u b / b i l l / s e n / s b _ 1 3 0 1 -1 3 5 0 / s b _ 1 3 3 0 _ b i l l _ 2 0 0 4 0 8 0 9 _ a m e n d e d _ a s m . h t m l . O n A u g u s t 1 7 , a f i r s t h e a r i n g w a s s e t f o r t h e b i l l , b u t i t w a s c a n c e l e d a t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e b i l l ' s a u t h o r . S e e C a l i f o r -n i a S t a t e S e n a t e , C o m p l e t e B i l l H i s t o r y : S . B . 1 3 3 0 , h t t p : / / i n f o . s e n . c a . g o v / p u b / b i l l / s e n / s b _ 1 3 0 1 - 1 3 5 0 / s b _ 1 3 3 0 _ b i l l _ 2 0 0 4 0 8 1 7 _ h i s t o r y . h t m l . I f i t p a s s e s , t h e b i l l w o u l d p r o h i b i t i n t e r c e p t i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e o c c u p a n t s o f a v e h i c l e . S e e C o m m i t t e e R e p o r t f o r 2 0 0 3 C a l i f o r n i a S e n a t e B i l l N o . 1 3 3 0 , s u p r a : AC a l i f o r n i a l a w a u t h o r i z e s t h e i n t e r c e p t i o n o f w i r e , e l e c t r o n i c p a g e r , o r e l e c t r o n i c c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . U n l i k e f e d e r a l l a w , t h e s t a t u t o r y s c h e m e s e t f o r t h i n P e n a l C o d e S e c t i o n 6 2 9 . 5 0 e t s e q . d o e s n o t a u t h o r i z e i n t e r c e p t i n g o r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s , c o m -m o n l y r e f e r r e d t o a s ` b u g g i n g . ' @ 2 1 9 S e e g e n e r a l l y , C e n t r e f o r P e r v a s i v e C o m p u t i n g , h t t p : / / w w w . p e r v a s i v e . d k / ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) . 2 2 0 T h e N i n t h C i r c u i t c a s e d i s c u s s e d a b o v e f o c u s e d e x c l u s i v e l y o n t h e s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y s t r u c t u r e T i t l e I I I c r e a t e d f o r t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f w i r e t a p s , s o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e v e h i c l e w a s a Ap r i v a t e @ p l a c e w a s n o t r a i s e d , t h o u g h i t w a s p r e s u m a b l y a s s u m e d . S e e g e n e r a l l y , I n r e T h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e U . S . , 3 4 9 F . 3 d 1 1 3 2 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( s h o w i n g h o w t h e c o u r t f o c u s e d o n t h e s t a t u t o r y s t r u c t u r e o f T i t l e I I I ) . 2 2 1 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t .



siveness of technology222Cthat will find its way into our homes. As computer technology becomes an embedded feature of every aspect of our lives, our homes, too, will come equipped with technology that can be used to eavesdrop on our conversations and track our activities.223 Like the System, this technology will 2 2 2 S e e , e . g . , S e a c h N e t w o r k i n g . C o m D e f i n i t i o n s , h t t p : / / s e a r c h n e t w o r k i n g . t e c h t a r g e t . c o m / s D e f i n i t i o n / 0 , , s i d 7 _ g c i 7 5 9 3 3 7 , 0 0 . h t m l ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) :

P e r v a s i v e c o m p u t i n g i s t h e t r e n d t o w a r d s i n c r e a s i n g l y u b i q u i t o u s . . . c o n n e c t e d c o m p u t i n g d e v i c e s i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , a t r e n d b e i n g b r o u g h t a b o u t b y a c o n v e r g e n c e o f a d v a n c e d e l e c t r o n i c - a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y , w i r e l e s s -t e c h n o l o g i e s a n d t h e I n t e r n e t . P e r v a s i v e c o m p u t i n g d e v i c e s a r e n o t p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s a s w e t e n d t o t h i n k o f t h e m , b u t v e r y t i n y - e v e n i n v i s i b l e - d e v i c e s , e i t h e r m o b i l e o r e m b e d d e d i n a l m o s t a n y t y p e o f o b j e c t i m a g i n a b l e , i n c l u d i n g c a r s , t o o l s , a p p l i a n c e s , c l o t h i n g a n d v a r i o u s c o n s u m e r g o o d s - a l l c o m m u n i c a t i n g t h r o u g h i n c r e a s i n g l y i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e t w o r k s . A c c o r d i n g t o D a n R u s s e l l , d i r e c t o r o f t h e U s e r S c i e n c e s a n d E x p e r i e n c e G r o u p a t I B M ' s A l m a d e n R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , b y 2 0 1 0 c o m p u t i n g w i l l h a v e b e c o m e s o n a t u r a l i z e d w i t h i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t p e o p l e w i l l n o t e v e n r e a l i z e t h a t t h e y a r e u s i n g c o m p u t e r s . R u s s e l l a n d o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s e x p e c t t h a t i n t h e f u t u r e s m a r t d e v i c e s a l l a r o u n d u s w i l l m a i n t a i n c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e i r l o c a t i o n s , t h e c o n t e x t s i n w h i c h t h e y a r e b e i n g u s e d , a n d r e l e v a n t d a t a a b o u t t h e u s e r s .

I d . 2 2 3 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . ; s e e a l s o M a r c L a n g h e i n r i c h , e t a l . , L i v i n g i n a S m a r t E n v i r o n m e n t : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e C o m i n g U b i q -u i t o u s I n f o r m a t i o n S o c i e t y , 1 5 T E L E C O M M . R E V . 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a t h t t p : / / w w w . v s . i n f . e t h z . c h / p u b l / p a p e r s / s k t e l e c o m 2 0 0 5 . p d f ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) :

B y v i r t u e o f i t s v e r y d e f i n i t i o n s , t h e v i s i o n o f u b i q u i t o u s c o m p u t i n g h a s t h e p o -t e n t i a l t o c r e a t e a n i n v i s i b l e a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e s u r v e i l l a n c e n e t w o r k , c o v e r i n g a n u n p r e c e d e n t e d s h a r e o f o u r p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e l i f e : AT h e o l d s a y -i n g s t h a t ` t h e w a l l s h a v e e a r ' a n d i f t h e s e w a l l s c o u l d t a l k ' h a v e b e c o m e t h e d i s t u r b i n g r e a l i t y . T h e w o r l d i s f i l l e d w i t h a l l - k n o w i n g , a l l - r e p o r t i n g t h i n g s ' . . . . T o d a y ' s e c o n o m i c r e a l i t y C s h o p p i n g w i t h o u t p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n c o m p r e h e n s i v e p r o f i l i n g . . . m i g h t b e c o m e a n e x p e n s i v e l u x u r y f o r w e l l - o f f c i t i z e n s . . . .

I d . ( q u o t i n g R . L u c k y , E v e r y t h i n g W i l l B e C o n n e c t e d T o E v e r y t h i n g E l s e , C o n n e c t i o n s , I E E E S P E C T R U M ( M a r c h 1 9 9 9 ) , a t h t t p : / / w w w . a r g r e e n h o u s e . c o m / p a p e r s / r l u c k y / s p e c t r u m / c o n n e c t . s h t m l ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) ) .


be included because it has other uses.224 Efforts are underway to develop Aaware homes@ that incorporate intelligent, embedded systems which interact with the occupants and with outside systems.225 An Aaware home@ will Abe able to recognize 2 2 4 S e e , e . g . , M a h e s h S . R a i s i n g h a n i , e t a l . , A m b i e n t I n t e l l i g e n c e : C h a n g i n g F o r m s o f H u m a n - C o m p u t e r I n t e r a c t i o n a n d t h e i r S o c i a l I m p l i c a t i o n s , 5 J . D I G I T A L I N F O . , I s s u e 4 , A r t . 2 7 1 ( A u g . 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 ) , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / j o d i . e c s . s o t o n . a c . u k / A r t i c l e s / v 0 5 / i 0 4 / R a i s i n g h a n i / ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) :

A y o u n g m o t h e r i s o n h e r w a y h o m e , d r i v i n g . . . w i t h h e r 8 - m o n t h o l d d a u g h t e r w h o i s s l e e p i n g i n h e r c h i l d s e a t o n t h e p a s s e n g e r s i d e o f t h e c a r . T h e i n f a n t i s p r o t e c t e d b y a n i n t e l l i g e n t s y s t e m c a l l e d S B E 2 a g a i n s t a i r b a g d e p l o y m e n t , w h i c h c o u l d b e f a t a l i n t h e c a s e o f a n a c c i d e n t . S B E 2 d e t e c t s w h e n t h e r e i s a c h i l d s e a t o n t h e p a s s e n g e r s e a t i n s t e a d o f a p e r s o n a n d a u t o m a t i c a l l y d i s a b l e s t h e a i r b a g . . . . A r r i v i n g h o m e , a s u r v e i l l a n c e c a m e r a r e c o g n i z e s t h e y o u n g m o t h e r , a u t o m a t i c a l l y d i s a b l e s t h e a l a r m , u n l o c k s t h e f r o n t d o o r a s s h e a p p r o a c h e s i t a n d t u r n s o n t h e l i g h t s t o a l e v e l o f b r i g h t n e s s t h a t t h e h o m e c o n t r o l s y s t e m h a s l e a r n e d s h e l i k e s . A f t e r d r o p p i n g o f f h e r d a u g h t e r , t h e y o u n g m o t h e r g e t s r e a d y f o r g r o c e r y s h o p p i n g . T h e i n t e l l i g e n t r e f r i g e r a t o r h a s s t u d i e d t h e f a m i l y ' s f o o d c o n s u m p -t i o n o v e r t i m e a n d k n o w s t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s a s w e l l a s w h a t h a s b e e n c o n s u m e d s i n c e t h e l a s t t i m e s h e w e n t s h o p p i n g . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n h a s b e e n r e c o r d e d b y a n i n t e r n a l t r a c k i n g s y s t e m a n d w i r e l e s s c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h t h e i n t e l l i g e n t k i t c h e n c a b i n e t s . B a s e d o n t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e f r i g e r a t o r a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o m p o s e s a s h o p p i n g l i s t , r e t r i e v e s q u o t a t i o n s f o r t h e i t e m s o n t h e l i s t f r o m f i v e d i f f e r e n t s u p e r m a r k e t s i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d t h r o u g h a n I n t e r n e t l i n k , s e n d s a n o r d e r t o t h e o n e w i t h t h e l o w e s t o f f e r a n d d i r e c t s t h e y o u n g m o t h e r t h e r e . W h e n a r r i v i n g a t t h e s u p e r m a r k e t , t h e s h o p p i n g c a r t h a s a l r e a d y b e e n f i l l e d w i t h t h e i t e m s o n h e r s h o p p i n g l i s t . S p o n t a n e o u s l y , s h e d e c i d e s t o a d d t h r e e m o r e i t e m s t o h e r c a r t a n d w a l k s t o t h e c h e c k - o u t . I n s t e a d o f p u t t i n g t h e g o o d s o n a b e l t , t h e e n t i r e c a r t g e t s c h e c k e d o u t s i m p l y b y r u n n i n g i t p a s t a n R F I D t r a n s p o n d e r t h a t d e t e c t s a l l i t e m s i n t h e c a r t a t o n c e a n d s e n d s t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r f o r p r o c e s s i n g .

I d . 2 2 5 S e e , e . g . , G e o r g i a I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g y , T h e A w a r e H o m e , a t h t t p : / / w w w . c c . g a t e c h . e d u / f c e / a h r i / ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 ) ; P h i l i p s R e s e a r c h , A m b i e n t I n t e l l i g e n c e : A N e w U s e r E x p e r i e n c e , a t h t t p : / / w w w . r e s e a r c h . p h i l i p s . c o m / t e c h n o l o g i e s / s y s t _ s o f t w / a m i / v i s i o n . h t m l ; s e e a l s o M a r k W a r d , S m a r t H o m e s O f f e r A H e l p i n g H a n d , B B C N E W S , M a y 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , a t



the people that live in it, adapt . . . to them [and] learn from their [email protected] Similar systems will become features of offices, hotel rooms and other environments.227 Pervasive technology raises difficult issues about privacy.228 h t t p : / / n e w s . b b c . c o . u k / 2 / h i / t e c h n o l o g y / 3 7 1 5 9 2 7 . s t m ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) . 2 2 6 P h i l i p s R e s e a r c h , s u p r a n o t e 2 2 5 ; s e e a l s o s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 2 2 7 S e e , e . g . , E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n , I S T A G : S c e n a r i o s f o r A m b i e n t I n t e l l i g e n c e i n 2 0 1 0 , 4 - 7 , 2 0 0 1 , a t h t t p : / / w w w . r e s e a r c h . p h i l i p s . c o m / t e c h n o l o g i e s / m i s c / h o m e l a b / d o w n l o a d s / e v r . 1 9 7 6 3 e n . p d f . 2 2 8 S e e , e . g . , M a r c L a n g h e i n r i c h , P r i v a c y b y D e s i g n C P r i n c i p l e s o f P r i v a c y - A w a r e U b i q u i t o u s S y s t e m s , P r o c e e d i n g s o f U b i C o m p 2 0 0 1 2 7 3 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , h t t p : / / w w w . v s . i n f . e t h z . c h / p u b l / p a p e r s / p r i v a c y - p r i n c i p l e s . p d f ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 ) :

W h a t i s i t t h a t m a k e s u b i q u i t o u s c o m p u t i n g a n y d i f f e r e n t f r o m o t h e r c o m p u t -e r s c i e n c e d o m a i n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o p r i v a c y ? . . . F o u r p r o p e r t i e s c o m e t o m i n d : C U B I Q U I T Y : U b i q u i t o u s c o m p u t i n g i s e v e r y w h e r e C t h i s i s i t s e s s e n c e , i t s e x p l i c i t g o a l . C o n s e q u e n t l y , d e c i s i o n s m a d e i n u b i q u i t o u s s y s t e m a n d a r t i f a c t d e s i g n w i l l a f f e c t l a r g e , i f n o t e v e r y p a r t o f o u r l i v e s , f r o m c r o s s i n g a s t r e e t t o s i t t i n g i n t h e l i v i n g r o o m t o e n t e r i n g a n o f f i c e b u i l d i n g . C I N V I S I B I L I T Y : N o t o n l y s h o u l d c o m p u t e r s b e e v e r y w h e r e , w e w a n t t h e m t o a c t u a l l y d i s a p p e a r f r o m o u r v i e w s . W i t h t h e e v e r s h r i n k i n g f o r m f a c t o r o f c o m p u t i n g a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n d e v i c e s , t h i s g o a l s e e m s f a r f r o m b e i n g s c i e n c e f i c t i o n . N a t u r a l l y , w e w i l l g o i n g t o h a v e a h a r d t i m e i n t h e f u t u r e d e c i d i n g a t w h a t t i m e s w e a r e i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h ( o r a r e u n d e r s u r v e i l l a n c e b y ) a c o m p u t i n g o r c o m m u n i c a t i o n d e v i c e . C S E N S I N G : A s c o m p u t i n g t e c h n o l o g y s h r i n k s a n d p r o c e s s i n g p o w e r i n -c r e a s e s , s o d o e s t h e a b i l i t i e s o f s e n s o r s t o a c c u r a t e l y p e r c e i v e c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . S i m p l e t e m p e r a t u r e , l i g h t , o r n o i s e s e n s o r s h a v e b e e n a r o u n d f o r q u i t e s o m e t i m e , b u t n e x t g e n e r a t i o n s e n s o r s w i l l a l l o w h i g h q u a l i t y a u d i o a n d v i d e o f e e d s f r o m c a m e r a s a n d m i c r o p h o n e s s m a l l e r t h a n b u t t o n s . E v e n e m o t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f o u r l i v e s , s u c h a s s t r e s s , f e a r , o r e x c i t e m e n t , c o u l d t h e n b e s e n s e d w i t h h i g h a c c u r a c y b y s e n s o r s e m b e d d e d i n o u r c l o t h i n g s [ s i c ] o r i n o u r e n v i r o n m e n t . C M E M O R Y A M P L I F I C A T I O N : A d v a n c e m e n t s i n s p e e c h a n d v i d e o p r o c e s s i n g , c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e e n h a n c e d s e n s o r y e q u i p m e n t a v a i l a b l e s o o n , m a k e i t


Our Fourth Amendment conception of privacy is spatially-driv-en in the sense that it equates privacy with exclusion.229 The Supreme Court held that Charles Katz had a Fourth Amend-ment expectation of privacy in his calls because by retreating to a telephone booth, he sought to prevent others from hearing what he said.230 Katz has created an Aassumption of risk@ stan-dard:231 My communications and activities are private only insofar as I shield them from observation by others. We conse-quently tend to associate Aprivacy@ with enclaves such as our homes, our cars, our offices.232 The pervasiveness of technology erodes those enclaves. Cell phones have basically eliminated phone booths; vehicles are equipped with surveillance technology; and with wireless net-works and cellular communications, much of what goes on in our homes leaks into the public domain. Offices may be some-what more secure, but much of our work takes place outside our offices. ARoad warriors@ equipped with the latest in wireless communication conduct business fromCand on their way to and fromCother offices, other places. The notion of private enclaves

a c t u a l l y f e a s i b l e t o p e r c e i v e m e m o r y p r o s t h e s i s , o r a m p l i f i e r s , w h i c h c a n c o n t i n u o u s l y a n d u n o b t r u s i v e l y r e c o r d e v e r y a c t i o n , u t t e r a n c e a n d m o v e m e n t o f o u r s e l v e s a n d o u r s u r r o u n d i n g s , f e e d i n g t h e m i n t o a s o p h i s t i c a t e d b a c k -e n d s y s t e m t h a t u s e s v i d e o a n d s p e e c h p r o c e s s i n g t o a l l o w u s b r o w s i n g a n d s e a r c h i n g t h r o u g h o u r p a s t .

I d . 2 2 9 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 . 2 3 0 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 . 2 3 1 S e e , e . g . , G a v i n S k o k , E s t a b l i s h i n g a L e g i t i m a t e E x p e c t a t i o n o f P r i v a c y i n C l i c k s t r e a m D a t a , 6 M I C H . T E L E C O M M . & T E C H . L . R E V . 6 1 , 7 1 - 7 3 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . 2 3 2 I n t h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e U . S . f o r a n O r d e r A u t h o r i z i n g t h e R o v i n g I n t e r c e p t i o n o f O r a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n s c a s e , t h e F B I p r o c e e d e d u n d e r T i t l e I I I . S i n c e T i t l e I I I a p p l i e s o n l y w h e n o n e h a s a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t h e c o m m u n i -c a t i o n s a t i s s u e , t h e F B I e i t h e r ( i ) o p e r a t e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e v e h i c l e w a s a Ap r i v a t e @ e n c l a v e r e q u i r i n g a w a r r a n t t o a c c e s s o r ( i i i ) p r o c e e d e d u n d e r T i t l e I I I b e c a u s e t h e a g e n t s n e e d e d t h e c o o p e r a t i o n o f t h e C o m p a n y t o e x p l o i t t h e S y s t e m f o r e a v e s d r o p p i n g p u r p o s e s . S e e s u p r a n o t e s 2 0 0 - 1 8 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t .



as places separate and apart from the world, areas in which our activities and communications are not subject to observation, is disappearing.

III. TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY PRIVACY? AYou have no privacy. Get over it.@233 In effect, we must decide if the Katz Court meant what it said when it held that the Fourth Amendment Aprotects people, not places.@234 Notwithstanding that holding, the Court has continued to approach Fourth Amendment privacy as if it is nothing more than a spatial concept; what I seclude from others is private, what I fail to shield is not.235 The question is whether this is inevitable: Can we construe Fourth Amendment privacy in a fashion that is expansive enough to encompass life in a society where physical barriers have little, if any, meaning?236 If we cannot, we will have little, if any, privacy.

2 3 3 O n t h e R e c o r d : S c o t t M c N e a l y , S A N F R A N C I S C O C H R O N I C L E , S e p t . 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , a t h t t p : / / w w w . s f g a t e . c o m / c g i -b i n / a r t i c l e . c g i ? f i l e = / c h r o n i c l e / a r c h i v e / 2 0 0 3 / 0 9 / 1 4 / B U 1 4 1 3 5 3 . D T L & t y p e = b u s i n e s s ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( c o m m e n t f r o m C h a i r m a n , P r e s i d e n t a n d C E O o f S u n M i c r o s y s t e m s , I n c . : AT h e p o i n t I w a s m a k -i n g w a s s o m e o n e a l r e a d y h a s y o u r m e d i c a l r e c o r d s . S o m e o n e h a s m y d e n t a l r e -c o r d s . S o m e o n e h a s m y f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s . S o m e o n e k n o w s j u s t a b o u t e v e r y t h i n g a b o u t m e . @) . 2 3 4 S e e K a t z , s u p r a n o t e 1 2 4 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 3 5 H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h e o n l y w a y t o s h i e l d m y a c t i v i t i e s a n d p e r s o n a l i n -f o r m a t i o n f r o m p r y i n g e y e s w a s t o p h y s i c a l l y s e c l u d e i t f r o m o b s e r v a t i o n , e . g . , i n l o c k e d r o o m s , s e a l e d c h e s t s , e t c . S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . T h i s i s a p p a r e n t i n K a t z ; t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o u n d t h a t C h a r l e s K a t z h a d a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n h i s p h o n e c a l l s b e c a u s e h e s e c r e t e d h i m s e l f i n a s e a l e d t e l e p h o n e b o o t h , t h e r e b y p r e v e n t i n g t h e u n a i d e d e a r f r o m h e a r i n g w h a t w a s s a i d . S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 . T h e p h y s i c a l s e c l u s i o n o f c o m m u n i c a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n w a s a l s o t h e b a s i s f o r t h e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n J a c k s o n ; t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o u n d a F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n l e t t e r s t h a t h a d b e e n s e a l e d t o f r u s t r a t e c a s u a l a c c e s s t o t h e i r c o n t e n t s . S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 1 . A s w e m o v e i n t o a d i g i t a l w o r l d , w e n e c e s s a r i l y d e v e l o p d i f f e r e n t w a y s t o f r u s -


A. Dynamics A . . . replacing . . . Big Brother . . . with a lot of Little Broth-

ers.@237 To understand why that is true, we must consider how ubiquitous technology will alter the basic law enforcement dynamic. Jackson, Boyd, Olmstead, Katz and most of the Su-preme Court's other Fourth Amendment decisions involved law enforcement's locating the presumptive situs of physical evi-dence238 and then taking affirmative steps to find and seize that evidence, a scenario older than general warrants.239 The scenar-io has two notable characteristics. First, officers seek evidence of a specific crime which they believe was committed by a spe-cific person; this focus circumscribes the scope of their efforts.240 Second, officers seek out and collect this evidence from places associated with the suspect.241 Fourth Amendment analysis has consequently focused on the interaction between the officers and the suspect; the concern has been with controlling the process by which officers intrude into that person's Aprivate@ spaces.242 The procedures we have devised to prevent Aunwar-ranted@ intrusions into personal, private spacesCa search war-rant supported by probable cause or an exceptionCall reflect this.243 Evidence-gathering that does not intrude into such space is outside the Fourth Amendment, at least as far as the object of the search is concerned.244

t r a t e a c c e s s t o d a t a ; e n c r y p t i o n i s a n o b v i o u s e x a m p l e . E n c r y p t i o n f r u s t r a t e s a c c e s s b y Ao b s c u r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o m a k e i t u n r e a d a b l e w i t h o u t s p e c i a l k n o w l e d g e . @ E n -c r y p t i o n , W i k i p e d i a , h t t p : / / e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i / E n c r y p t i o n . I t i s n o t a p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r b u t i t h a s t h e s a m e e f f e c t , a n d t h e s a m e l o g i c : t o b l o c k u n d e s i r e d a c c e s s . 2 3 6 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . 2 3 7 W h a t I s t h e M a t r i x ? A C L U S e e k s A n s w e r s o n N e w S t a t e - R u n S u r v e i l l a n c e P r o g r a m , A m e r i c a n C i v i l L i b e r t i e s U n i o n , O c t o b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , a t h t t p : / / w w w . a c l u . o r g / P r i v a c y / P r i v a c y . c f m ? I D = 1 4 2 5 7 & c = 1 3 0 ( q u o t i n g B a r r y S t e i n h a r d t ) ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 ) . 2 3 8 T h e e v i d e n c e c o n s i s t s o f i t e m s o f t a n g i b l e o r i n t a n g i b l e p e r s o n a l



p r o p e r t y . S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . A . T h i s i n c l u d e s b o d i l y s u b s t a n c e s . S e e , e . g . , S c h m e r b e r v . C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 4 U . S . 7 5 7 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . 2 3 9 S e e s u p r a n o t e s 2 0 - 2 1 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 4 0 S e e , e . g . , W A Y N E R . L A F A V E , S E A R C H A N D S E I Z U R E : A T R E A T I S E O N T H E

F O U R T H A M E N D M E N T V o l . 1 , ' 1 . 1 ( a ) ( 4 t h e d . 2 0 0 5 ) . 2 4 1 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . L a w e n f o r c e m e n t m a y a l s o s e e k e v i d e n c e f r o m t h o s e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s u s p e c t s , a s w e l l a s f r o m s u s p e c t s ; i n d e e d , o f f i c e r s m a y s e e k e v i d e n c e f r o m Ac i v i l i a n s , @ i . e . , t h o s e w h o h a v e n o i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e s u s p e c t e d c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . T h a t d o e s n o t a l t e r t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e d y n a m i c o u t l i n e d a b o v e . I n a l l o f t h e s e s c e n a r i o s C l a w e n f o r c e m e n t s e a r c h e s t h e s u s p e c t ' s p r e m i s e s , t h e p r e -m i s e s b e l o n g i n g t o s u s p e c t ' s a s s o c i a t e a n d t h e Ac i v i l i a n @ p r e m i s e s C t h e i n q u i r y i s w h e t h e r l a w e n f o r c e m e n t v i o l a t e d t h e p r i v a c y o f t h e p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s w h o s e p r e m i s e s w e r e t h e o b j e c t o f a s e a r c h . T h e f o c u s i s o n l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s ' a c t i v e l y t a r g e t i n g s o m e o n e ' s p r e m i s e s ( B o y d ) o r a c t i v i t y ( K a t z ) f o r s c r u t i n y . S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . A . I f t h e o f f i c e r s v i o l a t e s o m e o n e ' s p r i v a c y , t h e y c a n m o v e t o s u p p r e s s t h e e v i d e n c e , i f a n y , r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e v i o l a t i o n o r b r i n g a c i v i l r i g h t s s u i t s e e k i n g d a m -a g e s f o r t h e v i o l a t i o n . S e e , e . g . , F E D . R . C R I M . P . 4 1 ( h ) ; G r o h v . R a m i r e z , 5 4 0 U . S . 5 5 1 , 5 5 4 - 5 6 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . 2 4 2 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 2 4 3 S e e , e . g . , F E D . R . C R I M . P . 4 1 ( c ) - ( e ) ; L A F A V E , s u p r a n o t e 2 4 0 , ' 2 . 2 ( a ) . T h i s a s s u m p t i o n i s a l s o e m b e d d e d i n T i t l e I I I , t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o d u c t o f K a t z . S e e s u p r a n o t e s 2 0 9 - 1 2 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . T i t l e I I I ' s w i r e t a p p r o v i s i o n s s p e c i f y t h a t t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s i s n o t t o b e i n t e r r u p t e d b y Ai n t e r c e p t i o n ; @ t h i s i s s i m p l y a n a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e J a c k s o n p r i n c i p l e . S e e 1 8 U . S . C . '' 2 5 1 0 - 2 2 ; s e e a l s o s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . I n s t e a d o f u s i n g a n a d h e s i v e e n v e l o p e , o n e r e l i e s u p o n c o m m u n i c a t i o n s y s t e m s t h a t , i t h a s h e r e t o f o r e b e e n r e a s o n a b l e t o a s s u m e , a r e Ac l o s e d @ t o t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . S e e , e . g . , C O M P U T E R C R I M E A N D I N T E L -L E C T U A L P R O P E R T Y S E C T I O N , U . S . D E P ' T O F J U S T . , S E A R C H I N G A N D S E I Z I N G C O M P U T E R S A N D

O B T A I N I N G E L E C T R O N I C E V I D E N C E I N C R I M I N A L I N V E S T I G A T I O N S ' I V ( A ) ( 2 0 0 2 ) , a t h t t p : / / w w w . c y b e r c r i m e . g o v / s & s m a n u a l 2 0 0 2 . h t m # _ I V A _ ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) :

S i n c e i t s e n a c t m e n t i n 1 9 6 8 . . . T i t l e I I I h a s p r o v i d e d t h e s t a t u t o r y f r a m e w o r k t h a t g o v e r n s r e a l - t i m e e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . W h e n a g e n t s w a n t t o w i r e t a p a s u s p e c t ' s p h o n e , Ak e y -s t r o k e @ a h a c k e r b r e a k i n g i n t o a c o m p u t e r s y s t e m , o r a c c e p t t h e f r u i t s o f w i r e t a p p i n g b y a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n w h o h a s d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e o f a c r i m e , t h e a g e n t s f i r s t m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f T i t l e I I I . T h e s t r u c t u r e o f T i t l e I I I i s s u r p r i s i n g l y s i m p l e . T h e s t a t u t e ' s d r a f t e r s a s s u m e d t h a t e v e r y p r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n c o u l d b e m o d e l e d a s a t w o - w a y


Now, consider how this dynamic changes in a world of ubiquitous technology. Ambient technology creates an Ainvisible and comprehensive surveillance network,@ the constituent parts of which are operated by private entities. As Section II ex-plained, this network effectively eradicates the distinction be-tween Apublic@ and Aprivate@ spaces.245 Information that has historically been secluded behind physical barriers leaks out into the public domain.246 The data gathered by such a network, along with the data I generate through my online activities, provides a tremendous opportunity for law enforcement.247 In-

c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t w o p a r t i c i p a t i n g p a r t i e s , s u c h a s a t e l e p h o n e c a l l b e t w e e n A a n d B . A t a f u n d a m e n t a l l e v e l , t h e s t a t u t e p r o h i b i t s a t h i r d p a r t y ( s u c h a s t h e g o v e r n m e n t ) w h o i s n o t a p a r t i c i p a t i n g p a r t y t o t h e c o m m u n i -c a t i o n f r o m i n t e r c e p t i n g p r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s u s i n g a n Ae l e c t r o n i c , m e c h a n i c a l , o r o t h e r d e v i c e , @ u n l e s s o n e o f s e v e r a l s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n s a p p l i e s .

I d . ; s e e 1 8 U . S . C . ' 2 5 1 1 ( 3 4 ) ( b ) . S e e , e . g . , T e l e p h o n e t a p p i n g , W i k i p e d i a , h t t p : / / e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i / W i r e t a p ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) . 2 4 4 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . 2 4 5 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . ; s e e a l s o R O B E R T D . O ' H A R R O W , J R . , N O P L A C E T O H I D E 2 9 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) :

B e f o r e l o n g , o u r p h o n e s , l a p t o p c o m p u t e r s , P a l m P i l o t s , w a t c h e s p a g e r s , a n d m u c h m o r e w i l l p l a y p a r t s i n t h e m o s t e f f i c i e n t s u r v e i l l a n c e n e t w o r k e v e r m a d e . F o r g e t d r o p p i n g a c o i n i n t o a p a r k i n g m e t e r o r u s i n g a p a y p h o n e d i s -c r e e t l y o n t h e s t r e e t . T h o s e d a y s a r e s l i p p i n g b y . T h e m o s t s i m p l e , a n o n -y m o u s t r a n s a c t i o n s a r e n o w b e c o m i n g d a t a p o i n t s o n t h e v a s t a n d g r o w i n g m a t r i x o f e a c h o f o u r l i v e s .

I d . 2 4 6 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . 2 4 7 T h e d a t a g a t h e r e d b y t h e s e s o u r c e s c a n b e d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e b r o a d c a t e g o r i e s : ( i ) T o o l D a t a T o o l d a t a e n c o m p a s s e s p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s v a l u e d n o t f o r i t s c o n t e n t b u t f o r i t s u t i l i t y . I t i n c l u d e s S o c i a l S e c u r i t y n u m b e r s , d a t e s o f b i r t h , d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e n u m b e r s a n d o t h e r d a t a ; i t w i l l n o d o u b t c o m e t o i n c l u d e b i o m e t r i c i d e n t i f i e r s s u c h a s D N A . T o o l d a t a i s a g i v e n ; i t i s n o t t h e p r o d u c t o f m y w i l l o r e f f o r t b u t i s a s s i g n e d , m o r e o r l e s s a r b i t r a r i l y , t o m e . T o o l d a t a h a s Av a l u e @ b e c a u s e i t i s a n i m p l e m e n t t h a t c a n b e u s e d f o r g o o d o r e v i l . M y S o c i a l S e c u r i t y n u m b e r , f o r e x a m p l e , i s a t o o l I c a n



u s e t o i d e n t i f y m y s e l f f o r v a r i o u s b e n i g n p u r p o s e s ( p o s i t i v e v a l u e ) a n d o n e a c r i m i n a l c a n u s e t o s t e a l m y i d e n t i t y ( n e g a t i v e v a l u e ) . S e e , e . g . , B o w e n v . R o y , 4 7 6 U . S . 6 9 3 , 7 1 0 - 1 1 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T h o u g h t o o l d a t a i s s o m e t h i n g I Ar e c e i v e , @ i t i s n o t i n h e r e n t l y Ap u b l i c . @ M y S o c i a l S e c u r i t y n u m b e r a n d d a t e o f b i r t h m a y b e Ap u b l i c , @ i n t h a t I h a v e s h a r e d t h e m w i t h o t h e r s , b u t t h a t i s n o t i n e v i t a b l e , l i k e t h e o t h e r t y p e s o f t o o l d a t a i n c u r r e n t c i r c u l a -t i o n , t h e y a r e Ap u b l i c @ b e c a u s e w e h a v e n o t c o n c e p t u a l i z e d t o o l d a t a a s a c o m m o d i t y t h a t h a s Av a l u e @ a n d m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e p r o t e c t e d . T h e n e e d f o r , a n d u s e o f , t o o l d a t a i s a h i s t o r i c a l a c c i d e n t , a n a d h o c s o l u t i o n t o t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f m o d e r n s o c i e t y ; w e u s e t o o l d a t a t o i d e n t i f y ( AI a m S u s a n B r e n n e r @) a n d a u t h e n t i c a t e ( AH e r e i s p r o o f I a m S u s a n B r e n n e r @) . S e e , e . g . , B R U C E S C H N E I E R , B E Y O N D F E A R 1 8 2 - 9 5 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . F o r m o s t o f h u m a n h i s t o r y , t h e s e f u n c t i o n s w e r e r e l a t i o n a l ; p e o p l e w e r e b o r n , r a i s e d a n d l i v e d t h e i r l i v e s i n t h e s a m e c o m m u n i t y , w h e r e e v e r y o n e k n e w a n d r e c o g n i z e d t h e m . S C H N E I E R , a t 1 8 4 . A s p o p u l a t i o n s b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y m o b i l e a n d u r b a n i z e d , r e l a t i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d a u t h e n t i c a t i o n n o l o n g e r s u f f i c e d ; i t b e c a m e n e c e s s a r y t o f i n d s o m e s u r r o g a t e , a n d t h a t i s w h a t S o c i a l S e c u r i t y n u m b e r s , d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e s a n d o t h e r p e r s o n a l d a t a b e c a m e . S e e , e . g . , M a t t S u n d e e n , L i c e n s e t o D r i v e = P r o o f o f I d e n t i t y , S T A T E L E G I S L A T U R E S , A p r i l , 2 0 0 3 . ( i i ) B i o g r a p h i c a l D a t a B i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a d e r i v e s f r o m m y a c t i v i t i e s i n r e a l - a n d c y b e r - s p a c e ; i t i n c l u d e s w h e r e I l i v e a n d w h e r e I h a v e l i v e d , w h e r e I w o r k a n d w h e r e I h a v e w o r k e d , t h e c a r I d r i v e , t h e r o u t i n e s I f o l l o w a n d t h e p l a c e s a n d p e o p l e I v i s i t . B i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a i s c o n s i d e r e d Ap u b l i c @ b e c a u s e i t i s t h e p r o d u c t o f m y b e h a v i o r i n p u b l i c p l a c e s , w h e r e w h a t I d o c a n b e o b s e r v e d b y a n y o n e w h o s h a r e s t h a t s p a c e w i t h m e . S e e R e m s b u r g v . D o c u s e a r c h , I n c . 8 1 6 A . 2 d 1 0 0 1 ( N . H . 2 0 0 3 ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y , b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a , d e f i n e d a s i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h w a s o r c o u l d h a v e b e e n o b t a i n e d b y o b s e r v i n g a c t i v i t y i n a Ap u b l i c @ p l a c e , i s n o t p r i v a t e u n d e r K a t z o r u n d e r c o g n a t e t e s t s u s e d t o i m p l e m e n t c i v i l p r i v a c y p r o t e c t i o n s . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . K n o t t s , 4 6 0 U . S . 2 7 6 , 2 8 2 - 8 5 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; R e m s b u r g , 8 1 6 A . 2 d a t 1 0 0 9 . A s S e c t i o n I I e x p l a i n e d , t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f u b i q u i t o u s t e c h n o l o g y m a k e s t h e a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h i s c a t e g o r y i n c r e a s i n g l y p r o b l e m a t i c b e c a u s e i t i s b a s e d o n a p u r e l y s p a t i a l b i f u r c a t i o n o f Ap u b l i c @ a n d Ap r i v a t e . @ ( i i i ) T r a n s a c t i o n a l D a t a T r a n s a c t i o n a l d a t a i s g e n e r a t e d b y o u r i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s . I n a n a l y z i n g t h e p r i v a c y o f t r a n s a c t i o n a l d a t a , i t i s u s e f u l t o d i v i d e i t i n t o t w o t y p e s : ( a ) p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n a l d a t a , w h i c h r e s u l t s f r o m i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h a t t o r n e y s , p h y s i c i a n s , r e l i -g i o u s a d v i s o r s , p s y c h i a t r i s t s , a c c o u n t a n t s a n d o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s ; a n d ( b ) c o m -m e r c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n a l d a t a , w h i c h r e s u l t s f r o m i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h t h o s e w h o p r o v i d e c o m m e r c i a l g o o d s o r s e r v i c e s o f f l i n e o r o n l i n e . T h e r e a r e c e r t a i n c o n s t a n t s a c r o s s


t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s : E a c h g e n e r a t e s d a t a w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e s ( i ) t h a t I i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r p r o f e s s i o n a l o r c o m m e r c i a l r e s o u r c e o n o n e o r m o r e o c c a s i o n s , ( i i ) t h e n a t u r e o f t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n ( s e e k i n g l e g a l a d v i c e , m a k i n g a p u r c h a s e ) a n d ( i i i ) t h e d e t a i l s o f t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n ( s e e k i n g l e g a l a d v i c e a b o u t a n e s t a t e ; p u r c h a s i n g v i t a m i n s , e l e c t r o n i c s o r c l o t h i n g ) . N o n e o f t h i s d a t a i s p r i v a t e u n d e r t h e K a t z t e s t o r c o g n a t e c i v i l s t a n d a r d s b e c a u s e b y i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h e x t e r n a l e n t i t i e s ( h u m a n o r a u t o m a t e d ) I h a v e k n o w i n g l y e x p o s e d ( i ) - ( i i i ) t o p u b l i c v i e w ; I a s s u m e d t h e r i s k t h a t t h o s e w i t h w h o m I i n t e r a c t w i l l r e v e a l t h e d e t a i l s o f t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n t o o t h e r s . T h e r e c a n b e s o m e o v e r l a p b e t w e e n t r a n s a c t i o n a l d a t a a n d b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a . T o u n d e r s t a n d w h y , i t i s u s e f u l t o c o n s i d e r t w o r e a l w o r l d t r a n s a c t i o n s . I n t h e f i r s t , I c o n s u l t w i t h a n a t t o r n e y w h o s e o f f i c e i s i n m y n e i g h b o r h o o d ; i n t h e s e c o n d , I p u r c h a s e a p r e s c r i p t i o n f r o m a p h a r m a c i s t a t m y l o c a l d r u g s t o r e . M y t r a v e l i n g t o t h e l a w o f f i c e a n d t o t h e d r u g s t o r e t a k e s p l a c e i n p u b l i c , a n d s o c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a . I t i s a l s o t r a n s a c t i o n a l d a t a i n s o f a r a s i t s h o w s t h a t I i n t e r a c t e d w i t h t h e l a w y e r a n d w i t h t h e p h a r m a c i s t . T h e s e r e s p e c t i v e e n c o u n t e r s d i f f e r s o m e w h a t i n t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e n a t u r e a n d d e t a i l s o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s a r e b i o -g r a p h i c a l . M y p u r c h a s i n g a p r e s c r i p t i o n f r o m t h e p h a r m a c i s t t a k e s p l a c e i n Ap u b l i c , @ a n d s o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n t e n d s t o w a r d t h e b i o g r a p h i c a l ; b u t t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e p u r c h a s e w i l l r e m a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l u n l e s s I c h o o s e t o s h a r e t h e m o r u n l e s s t h e p h a r m a c i s t i s i n d i s c r e e t e n o u g h t o a n n o u n c e t h e n a t u r e a n d u s e s o f t h e m e d i c a t i o n I b u y . S i n c e i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o i n f e r t h a t I w e n t t o a l a w o f f i c e t o o b t a i n l e g a l a d v i c e , t h e n a t u r e o f t h a t t r a n s a c t i o n a l s o t e n d s t o w a r d s t h e b i o g r a p h i c a l ; b u t s i n c e t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i t s e l f d o e s n o t t a k e p l a c e i n p u b l i c , t h e d e t a i l s d o n o t c o n s t i t u t e b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a . T h e l a w h a s t r e a t e d t h e c a t e g o r i e s d i f f e r e n t l y : P r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s a r e u s u -a l l y e n c o m p a s s e d b y p r i v i l e g e s t h a t b a r t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l f r o m r e v e a l i n g d e t a i l s o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h o u t t h e c l i e n t ' s p e r m i s s i o n ; t h e p u r p o s e i s t o p r o v i d e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y w h e n i t i s Ae s s e n t i a l t o t h e f u l l a n d s a t i s f a c t o r y m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e -t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s . @ P A U L F . R O T H S T E I N & S U S A N W . C R U M P , F E D E R A L T E S T I M O N I A L P R I V -I L E G E S ' 1 . 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . F o r c o m m e r c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t At h e f a c t s o f a t r a n s a c t i o n b e l o n g j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y t o t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s . I f A l i c e b u y s a c h a t t e l f r o m B o b , o r d i n a r i l y b o t h A l i c e a n d B o b a r e f r e e t o d i s c l o s e t h i s f a c t . @ A . M i c h a e l F r o o m k i n , T h e D e a t h o f P r i v a c y ? , 5 2 S T A N . L . R E V . 1 4 6 1 , 1 5 2 1 - 2 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( n o t i n g t h a t a Av e r y s m a l l n u m b e r o f s t a t u t e s i m p o s e l i m i t s u p o n t h e s h a r i n g o f p r i v a t e t r a n s a c t i o n a l d a t a c o l l e c t e d b y p e r s o n s n o t c l a s s e d a s p r o f e s s i o n a l s @) . N e i t h e r t y p e o f t r a n s a c t i o n a l d a t a i s p r i v a t e i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l - c o m m o n l a w s e n s e , b u t t h e e v i d e n t i a r y a n d o t h e r c o n s t r a i n t s A m e r i c a n l a w p l a c e s o n t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f d a t a r e s u l t i n g f r o m p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s l i m i t i t s c i r c u l a t i o n t o t h o s e i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n s u l t a t i o n ; t h e r e f o r e , w h i l e p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n a l d a t a i s n o t



stead of having to search variously for discrete bits of informa-tion from a disjointed array of physical sources, officers can harvest information that is held by these private entities.248 p r i v a t e , i t i s s e c u r e d . 2 4 8 S e e , e . g . , M i c h a e l D . B i r n h a c k & N i v a E l k i n - K o r e n , T h e I n v i s i b l e H a n d s h a k e : T h e R e e m e r g e n c e o f t h e S t a t e i n t h e D i g i t a l E n v i r o n m e n t , 8 V A . J . L . &

T E C H . * 2 - 3 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( L E X I S ) : T h e I n t e r n e t w a s i n i t i a t e d b y t h e S t a t e , a n d s o o n a f t e r w a s p r i v a t i z e d . . . . M a r k e t p o w e r s . . . f a c i l i t a t e d t h e r i s e o f n e w p l a y e r s . . . w h o g a i n e d p o w e r a n d c o n t r o l i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n e n v i r o n m e n t . . . . A c o n v e r g e n c e o f i n t e r e s t s s e e m s t o b e d e v e l o p i n g a m o n g p l a y e r s s u c h a s c o p y r i g h t o w n e r s a n d s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e S t a t e ' s g r o w i n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e d i g i t a l e n v i r o n m e n t , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d . L a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s s e e k t o e n h a n c e t h e i r m o n i t o r i n g c a p a c i t y a n d o n l i n e b u s i n e s s e s s e e k t o p r e v e n t f r a u d a n d c o m b a t p i r a c y w h i l e s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e i r t i e s w i t h a u t h o r i t i e s . T h i s c o n v e r g e n c e m i g h t l e a d t o a n u n h o l y a l l i a n c e w i t h p o t e n t i a l l y t r o u b l e s o m e r e -s u l t s . . . . T h e m o s t e x p l i c i t e x a m p l e . . . i s r e f l e c t e d i n a p r e s e n t a t i o n b y J o s e p h E . S u l l i v a n , d i r e c t o r o f c o m p l i a n c e a n d l a w e n f o r c e m e n t r e l a t i o n s a t e B a y . A d -d r e s s i n g l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n t s a t a c o n f e r e n c e o n c y b e r c r i m e , S u l l i v a n o f -f e r e d t o h a n d o v e r i n f o r m a t i o n , w h e n r e q u e s t e d . . . . e B a y i s o n e o f t h e l a r g e s t o n l i n e e - c o m m e r c e b u s i n e s s e s , a n d t h e o w n e r o f P a y P a l , w h i c h p r o -v i d e s c l e a r i n g s e r v i c e s f o r o n l i n e f i n a n c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s . e B a y c o n t r o l s a c c e s s t o a c o l o s s a l a m o u n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s , n a m e s , u s e r I D s a n d p a s s w o r d s , a f f i l i a t i o n s , e - m a i l a d d r e s s e s , p h y s i c a l a d d r e s s e s , s h i p -p i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , c o n t a c t i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d t r a n s a c t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n ( i . e . , b i d d i n g h i s t o r y , p r i c e s p a i d , f e e d b a c k r a t i n g ) . B u t e B a y i s n o t a l o n e i n i m p l e m e n t i n g l a w e n f o r c e m e n t - f r i e n d l y p o l i c y . T h e e m e r g i n g r e g i m e o f r e c e n t y e a r s f a c i l i t a t e s c o o p e r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e S t a t e a n d t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r i n l a w e n f o r c e m e n t e f f o r t s , b e y o n d t h e r e a c h o f j u d i c i a l r e v i e w .

I d . ( n o t e o m i t t e d ) ; s e e a l s o O ' H A R R O W , s u p r a n o t e 2 4 5 , a t 3 0 0 : L a w e n f o r c e m e n t a n d i n t e l l i g e n c e s e r v i c e s d o n ' t n e e d t o d e s i g n t h e i r o w n s u r v e i l l a n c e s y s t e m s . . . . T h e y o n l y h a v e t o r e a c h o u t t o t h e c o m p a n i e s t h a t a l r e a d y t r a c k u s s o w e l l w h i l e p r o m i s i n g b e t t e r s e r v i c e , s e c u r i t y , e f f i c i e n c y , a n d , p e r h a p s m o s t o f a l l , c o n v e n i e n c e . I t t a k e s l e s s a n d l e s s e f f o r t e a c h y e a r t o k n o w w h a t e a c h o f u s i s a b o u t . W h e n w e w e r e a t t h e c o f f e e s h o p a n d w h e r e w e w e n t i n o u r c a r s . W h a t w e w r o t e o n l i n e , w h o w e s p o k e t o o n t h e p h o n e , t h e n a m e s o f o u r f r i e n d s a n d t h e i r f r i e n d s a n d a l l t h e p e o p l e t h e y k n o w . W h e n w e r o a d t h e s u b w a y , t h e c a n d i d a t e s w e s u p p o r t e d , t h e b o o k s


Under current Fourth Amendment principles, I have no expec-tation of privacy in information I have shared with these enti-ties or information they have gathered about me.249 The essen-tial dynamic is missing. The officers are not directing their efforts at me and my private spaces; they instead direct their ef-forts at others in order to obtain information about me. The focus shifts from official intrusions into spaces under my tem-porary or permanent control to the acquisition of evidence from sources over which I exercise no control. I become irrelevant except as the object of the data acquisition. The harvesting scenario will not supplant the traditional dynamic. We are physical beings and, as such, will continue to act, and to generate physical evidence, in the real world. The primary locus of evidence for traditional crimes such as rape, murder and drug trafficking will no doubt remain in the real world.250 The Aharvesting@ scenario instead represents a new,

w e r e a d , t h e d r u g s w e t o o k , w h a t w e h a d f o r d i n n e r , h o w w e l i k e o u r s e x . M o r e t h a n e v e r b e f o r e , t h e d e t a i l s a b o u t o u r l i v e s a r e n o l o n g e r o u r o w n . T h e y b e l o n g t o t h e c o m p a n i e s t h a t c o l l e c t t h e m , a n d t h e g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s t h a t b u y o r d e m a n d t h e m i n t h e n a m e o f k e e p i n g u s s a f e . . . .

I d . 2 4 9 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . ; s e e a l s o s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s C s u c h a s t h e H e a l t h I n s u r a n c e P o r t a b i l i t y a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ( H I P A A ) , t h e R i g h t t o F i n a n c i a l P r i v a c y A c t , t h e G r a m m - L e e c h - B l i l e y A c t a n d t h e E l e c t r o n i c C o m m u n i c a t i o n s P r i v a c y A c t ( E C P A ) C w h i c h i m p o s e r e s t r i c t i o n s o n t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f v a r i o u s t y p e s o f p e r s o n a l d a t a . S e e , e . g . , 4 5 C . F . R . ' 1 6 4 . 5 1 2 ( e ) ( H I P A A ) ; 1 2 U . S . C . ' 3 4 0 5 ) ( R i g h t t o F i n a n c i a l P r i v a c y A c t ) ; 1 5 U . S . C . ' 6 8 0 2 ( e ) ( 8 ) ( G r a m m - L e e c h - B l i l e y ) ; 1 8 U . S . C o d e ' 2 7 0 3 ( E C P A ) . T h e s e a n d s i m i l a r s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s a r e n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h i s d i s c u s s i o n ( a ) b e c a u s e t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s t h e y i m p o s e a r e u s u a l l y l e s s t h a n t h o s e r e -q u i r e d b y t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t a n d ( b ) t h e y a r e f a r m o r e f r a g i l e t h a n t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t . S e e , e . g . , P e t e r P . S w i r e , K a t z I s D e a d , L o n g L i v e K a t z , 1 0 2 M I C H . L . R E V . 9 0 4 , 9 1 6 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . W h a t C o n g r e s s g i v e s , C o n g r e s s c a n t a k e a w a y . P u b l i c a w a r e n e s s i s a n o t h e r i s s u e : T h e a v e r a g e A m e r i c a n i s u n l i k e l y t o b e a w a r e o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e s e s t a t u t e s ( e x c e p t , p e r h a p s , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t s o m e r e q u i r e o n e t o f i l l o u t p a p e r w o r k ) , b u t d o e s h a v e a t l e a s t a p r a g m a t i c g r a s p o f F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t g u a r a n t e e s . 2 5 0 E v e n c r i m e s s u c h a s t h i s g e n e r a t e e v i d e n t i a r y d a t a . S e e , e . g . , E r i c



added dynamic, a twenty-first century variation of the Aassault on the castle@ that ultimately resulted in the adoption of the Fourth Amendment.251 There are commonalities between the two. A concern for the sanctity of personal information runs from Entick through Jackson and Boyd, and is implicit in Katz and Berger.252 These cases, however, all involved the traditional Fourth Amendment dynamic: a direct assault upon personal information in the hands of the person to whom it pertains. The issue we must resolve is whether the Fourth Amendment can, and should, be construed as encompassing indirect assaults as well. We begin with whether it should be construed in this fash-ion.253 The impetus, if any, for such a construction must lie in W e s l a n d e r , W e b E v i d e n c e U s e d i n M u r d e r H e a r i n g , L a w r e n c e ( K a n s a s ) J o u r n a l -W o r l d , D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 , a t h t t p : / / w w w . l j w o r l d . c o m / s e c t i o n / c r i m e _ f i r e / s t o r y / 1 8 9 9 9 8 :

T h e c a s e o f a K a n s a s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r c h a r g e d w i t h m u r d e r i n g h i s e x - w i f e h e a d e d i n t o u n c h a r t e d l e g a l t e r r i t o r y T h u r s d a y a s p r o s e c u t o r s p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e o f a n I n t e r n e t s e a r c h h i s t o r y f r o m t h e s u s p e c t ' s c o m p u t e r s . . . . . A L a w r e n c e P o l i c e d e t e c t i v e w h o e x a m i n e d c o m p u t e r s s e i z e d f r o m T h o m a s E . M u r r a y t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n t h e m o n t h b e f o r e C a r m i n D . R o s s ' k i l l i n g , M u r r a y ' s c o m p u t e r s h a d b e e n u s e d t o s e a r c h t h e I n t e r n e t f o r p h r a s e s t h a t i n c l u d e d ` h o w t o h i r e a n a s s a s s i n , ' ` h o w t o k i l l s o m e o n e q u i c k l y a n d q u i e t l y ' a n d ` h o w t o m u r d e r s o m e o n e a n d n o t g e t c a u g h t . ' . . . . [ T h e d e t e c t i v e ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t e v e n t h o u g h M u r r a y a p p e a r e d t o u s e h i s c o m p u t e r r e g u l a r l y o n T h u r s d a y m o r n i n g s , t h e r e w a s v i r t u a l l y n o f i l e a c t i v i t y o n M u r r a y ' s c o m p u t e r s t h e m o r n i n g o f N o v . 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 , t h e d a y p r o s e c u t o r s a l l e g e h e d r o v e t o L a w r e n c e a n d s t a b b e d a n d b e a t R o s s t o d e a t h .

I d . 2 5 1 W i l s o n v . L a y n e , 5 2 6 U . S . 6 0 3 , 6 0 9 - 1 0 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; s e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 2 5 2 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . ; S e c t i o n I . A . S e e , e . g . , B e r g e r v . N e w Y o r k , 3 8 8 U . S . 4 1 , 4 9 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ( c i t i n g E n t i c k a n d n o t i n g t h a t t h e Al a w , t h o u g h j e a l o u s o f i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y , h a s n o t k e p t p a c e w i t h . . . a d v a n c e s i n s c i e n t i f i c k n o w l e d g e @ s u c h a s w i r e t a p p i n g ) . 2 5 3 T h e i s s u e a s t o w h e t h e r w e c a n c o n s t r u e t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t i n


the current interpretation's inability to protect us from new and Aunwarranted@ governmental intrusions. And that brings us back to the new dynamic. The Aharvesting@ dynamic has troubling implications for our ability to balance the often-con-flicting demands of privacy and of effective law enforcement. This is because it supports two types of law enforcement evi-dence-gathering, both of which are outside the strictures of the Fourth Amendment.254 The first scenario is the one discussed above, in which officers collect information about me, specifical-ly, from private entities.255 While it is outside the Fourth Amendment, this scenario is conceptually more analogous to the traditional Fourth Amendment dynamic in that its focus is narrower; the concern is with gathering evidence about a spe-cific person who is suspected of specific criminal activity.256 The second scenario is based on the same principle as the first, but is broader in scope. Since none of us have a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in data held by private entities,257 it follows that law enforcement should be able to utilize the resources of these entities to harvest information generally, for strategic, as well as investigative, purposes.258

t h i s f a s h i o n i s e x a m i n e d i n S e c t i o n I I I . B . , i n f r a . 2 5 4 T h e r e a r e , a s n o t e d e a r l i e r , s t a t u t o r y r e s t r i c t i o n s o n c e r t a i n t y p e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n - g a t h e r i n g . S e e s u p r a n o t e 2 4 9 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 5 5 S e e s u p r a n o t e 2 4 8 - 4 9 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 5 6 S e e i d . 2 5 7 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . A g a i n , t h e r e a r e s t a t u t o r y r e s t r i c t i o n s o n c e r t a i n t y p e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n - g a t h e r i n g . S e e s u p r a n o t e 2 4 9 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 5 8 S e e C r e a t i n g a T r u s t e d I n f o r m a t i o n N e t w o r k f o r H o m e l a n d S e c u r i t y 3 1 , S e c o n d R e p o r t o f t h e M a r k l e F o u n d a t i o n T a s k F o r c e , D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 3 , a t h t t p : / / w w w . m a r k l e t a s k f o r c e . o r g / r e p o r t s / T F N S _ R e p o r t 2 _ M a s t e r . p d f :

G o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s h a v e a l w a y s h a d a c c e s s t o c e r t a i n k i n d s o f p r i v a t e l y h e l d i n f o r m a t i o n . B u t h i s t o r i c a l l y , i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t s t o c o m m e r c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s w e r e m a d e o n a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s . . . . W i t h t h e a d v e n t o f d a t a - m i n i n g a n d . . . t h e i n c r e a s i n g c o m p u t a t i o n a l p o w e r o f c o m p u t e r s . . . a g e n c i e s a t a l l l e v e l s o f g o v e r n m e n t a r e n o w i n t e r e s t e d i n c o l l e c t i n g l a r g e a m o u n t s o f d a t a f r o m c o m m e r c i a l s o u r c e s . S u c h d a t a m i g h t b e u s e d n o t o n l y f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f s p e c i f i c p e o p l e . . . b u t a l s o t o p e r f o r m



These scenarios are troubling because they allow law en-forcement officers to accomplish indirectly what they may not be able to accomplish directly. Assume, for example, that offi-cers are investigating illegal activity and suspect I am involved in this activity. Historically, the only ways for them to pursue that suspicion were (i) to question my associates (which does not implicate my privacy);259 (ii) to question me (which raises

l a r g e - s c a l e d a t a a n a l y s i s a n d p a t t e r n d i s c o v e r y . . . .

I d . S e e , e . g . , W i l l i a m J . K r o u s e , T h e M u l t i - S t a t e A n t i - t e r r o r i s m I n f o r m a t i o n E x c h a n g e ( M A T R I X ) P i l o t P r o j e c t 1 , C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e s e a r c h S e r v i c e ( 2 0 0 4 ) , h t t p : / / w w w . m a t r i x - a t . o r g / C R S _ M A T R I X _ R e p o r t . p d f ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( p r o -j e c t i n t e n d e d t o l e t i n v e s t i g a t o r s As h a r e a n d a n a l y z e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s a l r e a d y a v a i l a b l e t o l a w e n f o r c e m e n t f r o m o p e n p u b l i c a n d s t a t e - o w n e d d a t a , w i t h o u t a s u b p o e n a o r c o u r t o r d e r @) ; s e e a l s o i d . a t 8 :

[ I ] n t h e p a s t d e c a d e , t h e q u a n t i t y o f p e r s o n a l d a t a h e l d b y t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r h a s e x p l o d e d , a s c o m p u t i n g a n d s t o r a g e c a p a b i l i t i e s h a v e r a p i d l y a d v a n c e d , a n d a s s o c i a t e d c o s t s h a v e c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y d i m i n i s h e d . T h e s a m e c o u l d b e s a i d o f p u b l i c d a t a h e l d b y f e d e r a l , s t a t e , a n d l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s . M u c h p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e s e c t o r d a t a h a v e b e e n a g g r e g a t e d i n t o Ad a t a m a r t s . @ T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s o f t e n a v a i l a b l e c o m m e r c i a l l y f o r s a l e f r o m c o m p a n i e s s p e c i a l i z i n g i n d a t a a g g r e g a t i o n , l i k e C h o i c e P o i n t , E q u i f a x , E x p e r i a n , Q s e n t , L e x i s N e x i s , a n d W e s t l a w . W i t h a d v a n c e d c o m p u t i n g t e c h n o l o g i e s t e r a - a n d p e t a b y t e s o f d a t a c a n b e m a n i p u l a t e d , a n d m u l t i p l e d a t a m a r t s c a n b e m e r g e d o r c r o s s r e f e r e n c e d . M o r e o v e r , c o m p u t e r a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e a v a i l a b l e t o ` m i n e ' t h e s e d a t a f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f p r o f i l i n g , p a t t e r n a n a l y s i s , l i n k a n a l y s i s , t r a n s a c t i o n a l f o o t p r i n t i n g , a n d i d e n t i t y v e r i f i -c a t i o n .

I d . ( n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . AL i n k a n a l y s i s @ i s Au n c o v e r i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t m a y b e i n d i c a t i v e o f s u s p i c i o u s p a t t e r n s , g r o u p s , o r c o n n e c t i o n s . @ I d . a t n . 4 2 . AT r a n s a c t i o n a l f o o t p r i n t i n g @ i n v o l v e s i d e n t i f y i n g At h e d a t a t r a i l s o f s u s p i c i o u s a c t i v i t i e s b y i n d i v i d u a l s a n d g r o u p s @ f r o m t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e i r o n l i n e a c t i v i t y . I d . a t n . 4 3 . F o r t h e e v o l u t i o n o f t h e M a t r i x P r o j e c t , s e e , e . g . , R O B E R T D . O ' H A R R O W , J R . , N O P L A C E T O H I D E 9 8 - 1 2 4 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . F o r a n o t h e r p e r s p e c t i v e , s e e , e . g . , C r e a t i n g a T r u s t e d I n f o r m a t i o n N e t w o r k f o r H o m e l a n d S e c u r i t y 3 0 , S e c o n d R e p o r t o f t h e M a r k l e F o u n d a t i o n T a s k F o r c e , D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 3 , a t h t t p : / / w w w . m a r k l e t a s k f o r c e . o r g / r e p o r t s / T F N S _ R e p o r t 2 _ M a s t e r . p d f ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) . 2 5 9 S e e , e . g . , H o f f a v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 8 5 U . S . 2 9 3 , 3 0 2 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ( AN e i t h e r t h i s C o u r t n o r a n y m e m b e r o f i t h a s e v e r e x p r e s s e d t h e v i e w t h a t t h e


Fifth Amendment issues);260 and (iii) to search for physical evidence that was likely to be in my possession and consequent-ly likely to be in Aprivate@ areas under my control. The officers cannot pursue option (iii) unless and until they develop probable cause, obtain a search warrant and execute the war-rant with the precision it requires.261 But option (iii) is compelling only insofar as the information the officers need to confirm my involvement in criminal activity is physical evidence located in Aprivate,@ physical spaces. Assume that the physical evidence (if any) is not the only means of accomplishing this; assume that I exist in a world where the pervasiveness of technology surpasses its current levels. I may live and work in circumscribed physical spaces, but those spaces, as well as my modes of transportation and the implements I use to conduct my routine activities, are all Alive,@ i.e., they all track my activities.262 It is almost certain that, in such an environment, the officers could find the confirmatory evidence263 they need indirectly, by consulting the private enti-

F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t s a w r o n g d o e r ' s m i s p l a c e d b e l i e f t h a t a p e r s o n t o w h o m h e v o l u n t a r i l y c o n f i d e s h i s w r o n g d o i n g w i l l n o t r e v e a l i t @) ; s e e a l s o i n f r a S e c t i o n I I I . B . 2 . 2 6 0 S e e , e . g . , U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M a n d u j a n o , 4 2 5 U . S . 5 6 4 , 5 7 2 - 7 3 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ( g r a n d j u r y t e s t i m o n y ) ; M i r a n d a v . A r i z o n a , 3 8 4 U . S . 4 3 6 , 4 4 4 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ( c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n ) . 2 6 1 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . T h i s i s t r u e r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e o f f i c e r s s e e k e v i d e n c e i n Ap r i v a t e @ s p a c e s b e l o n g i n g t o m e , t h e s u s p e c t , o r t o o t h e r s w h o m a y o r m a y n o t h a v e b e e n i n v o l v e d i n m y c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 6 2 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . 2 6 3 T h e y c a n d o t h i s i n e i t h e r o f t w o w a y s : F i r s t , i n a n e r a o f c y b e r l i f e a n d c y b e r c r i m e , d i g i t a l e v i d e n c e m a y b e a l l t h e y n e e d . I f t h a t i s t r u e , t h e y s h o u l d b e a b l e t o o b t a i n w h a t t h e y n e e d f r o m t h e v a r i o u s s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s , i n t h e f o r m o f t r a n s a c t i o n a l d a t a a n d b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a ( r e c o r d s o f m y c o m i n g s a n d g o i n g s , e t c . ) . S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . S e c o n d , i f t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e ( d r u g s , m u r d e r , t h e f t o f t a n -g i b l e p r o p e r t y ) , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y o b t a i n f r o m t h e s e t h i r d - p a r t i e s s h o u l d b e s u f f i c i e n t , d i r e c t l y o r i n f e r e n t i a l l y , t o p r o v i d e t h e p r o b a b l e c a u s e t h e y n e e d t o e n t e r m y p r e m i s e s t o s e a r c h f o r a n d s e i z e t h e p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e .



ties which provide these technologies and, in so doing, inciden-tally compile information about me.264 Since I have no Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in this information, the officers can obtain it without a warrant265 based on suspicion or simple curiosity. That possibility creates the specter of a twen-ty-first century analogue of the general warrant,266 an ad hoc 2 6 4 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . T h e r e a r e t w o w a y s t h e o f f i c e r s c a n g a i n a c c e s s t o t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n : T h e p r i v a t e e n t i t i e s c a n p r o v i d e i t v o l u n t a r i l y o r , i f t h e y d e c l i n e t o d o s o , o f f i c e r s c a n o b t a i n p r o c e s s n o t r e q u i r i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e ( c o u r t o r d e r , s u b p o e n a ) t o c o m p e l t h e e n t i t i e s t o c o o p e r a t e . S e e s u p r a n o t e 2 4 7 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 6 5 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . ; s e e a l s o C a l i f o r n i a B a n k e r s A s s ' n v . S h u l t z , 4 1 6 U . S . 2 1 , 9 4 - 9 5 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ( M a r s h a l l , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) :

B y c o m p e l l i n g a n o t h e r w i s e u n w i l l i n g b a n k t o p h o t o c o p y t h e c h e c k s o f i t s c u s t o m e r s , t h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s a s m u c h o f a h a n d i n s e i z i n g t h o s e c h e c k s a s i f i t h a d f o r c e d a p r i v a t e p e r s o n t o b r e a k i n t o t h e c u s t o m e r ' s h o m e o r o f f i c e a n d p h o t o c o p y t h e c h e c k s t h e r e . . . . O u r F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t j u r i s p r u -d e n c e s h o u l d n o t b e s o w o o d e n a s t o i g n o r e t h e f a c t t h a t t h r o u g h m i c r o -f i l m i n g a n d o t h e r t e c h n i q u e s o f t h i s e l e c t r o n i c a g e , i l l e g a l s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s c a n t a k e p l a c e w i t h o u t t h e b r u t e f o r c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e g e n e r a l w a r r a n t s w h i c h r a i s e d t h e i r e o f t h e F o u n d i n g F a t h e r s . . . . A s w e e m p h a -s i z e d i n K a t z v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 8 9 U . S . 3 4 7 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y p h y s i c a l s e i z u r e o f t a n g i b l e p r o p e r t y d o e s n o t f o r e c l o s e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t i n q u i r y . . . . B y t h e s a m e l o g i c , t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t s h o u l d a p p l y t o t h e r e c o r d i n g o f c h e c k s . . . . A n d s u c h a m a s s i v e a n d i n d i s c r i m i n a t e s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e , n o t o n l y w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t b u t a l s o w i t h o u t p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e t h a t a n y e v i d e n c e t o b e o b t a i n e d i s r e l e v a n t t o a n y i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i s p l a i n l y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e s b e h i n d t h e A m e n d m e n t . . .

I d . ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . A g a i n , t h e r e a r e s t a t u t o r y r e s t r i c t i o n s o n c e r t a i n t y p e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n - g a t h e r i n g . S e e s u p r a n o t e 2 4 7 a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 6 6 S e e s u p r a n o t e s E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . - E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t ; s e e a l s o s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . T h e d a n g e r s o f t h i s p r a c t i c e w e r e p o i n t e d o u t a l -m o s t t h r e e d e c a d e s a g o . S e e P e r s o n a l P r i v a c y i n a n I n f o r m a t i o n S o c i e t y : T h e R e p o r t o f t h e P r i v a c y P r o t e c t i o n S t u d y C o m m i s s i o n , C h a p t e r 9 , 1 9 7 7 , a t h t t p : / / a s p e . h h s . g o v / d a t a c n c l / 1 9 7 7 p r i v a c y / c 9 . h t m ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ) :

T r a d i t i o n a l l y , t h e r e c o r d s a n i n d i v i d u a l m i g h t k e e p o n h i s d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s , f i n a n -c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s , o r n e t w o r t h w e r e b e y o n d g o v e r n m e n t r e a c h u n l e s s t h e g o v e r n m e n t c o u l d e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e a c r i m e h a d b e e n


procedure that would let officers Ainvestigate merely on suspi-cion that the law is being violated, or . . . because [they want] assurance that it is not.@267 Now consider a variation of this hypothetical: Officers are curious about specific illegal activity, either because they have reason to believe it is occurring or because they want assurance that it is not. Since their belief (if any) is not based on articulable facts indicating that the activity is attributable to particular individuals, they cannot utilize the traditional Fourth Amendment dynamic (option (iii)).268 Instead, they de-cide to rely on the second scenario available under the new

c o m m i t t e d . I f g o v e r n m e n t w e r e m e r e l y s u s p i c i o u s a n d w a n t e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e , s u c h r e c o r d s w e r e u n a v a i l a b l e . T h e l e g a l s t a n d a r d s t h a t p r o t e c t e d t h e m e v o l v e d i n a w o r l d w h e r e s u c h r e c o r d s w e r e a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l l y i n t h e a c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . R e f l e c t i n g t h a t r e a l i t y , t h e l a w o n l y b a r r e d g o v e r n m e n t f r o m s e i z i n g r e c o r d s i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l . . . . [ T ] h a t w o r l d n o l o n g e r e x i s t s . T h i r d p a r t i e s . . . n o w k e e p a g r e a t m a n y r e c o r d s d o c u m e n t i n g v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s o f a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l . I n d e e d , t h e s e t h i r d p a r t i e s k e e p r e c o r d s a b o u t t h e i n d i v i d u a l h e w o u l d n o t o r d i n a r i l y h a v e k e p t i n t h e p a s t . R e c o r d s f o r l i f e a n d h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e , f o r e x a m p l e , a r e r e p o s i t o r i e s o f h i g h l y i n t i m a t e p e r s o n a l d a t a . . . w h i c h w e r e v i r t u a l l y u n k n o w n u n t i l r e c e n t d e c a d e s . . . . . . . . T h e e x i s t e n c e o f r e c o r d s a b o u t a n i n d i v i d u a l t h a t a r e n o t i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n p o s e s s e r i o u s p r i v a c y p r o t e c t i o n p r o b l e m s . . . . R e c o r d k e e p e r s c a n [ a n d ] o f t e n d o , . . . d i s c l o s e r e c o r d s . . . t o g o v e r n m e n t w i t h o u t s e e k i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s a p p r o v a l . . . . A g o v e r n m e n t r e q u e s t m a d e i n f o r m a l l y t h r o u g h a p e r s o n a l v i s i t t o t h e r e c o r d k e e p e r o r b y a t e l e p h o n e c a l l . . . m a y l e a v e n o t r a c e . . . . E v e n i f t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s g i v e n n o t i c e a n d d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f t h e d i s c l o s u r e , h e h a s n o l e g a l r i g h t t o c h a l l e n g e t h e p r o p r i e t y o f g o v e r n m e n t a c c e s s t o h i s r e c o r d s , d e s p i t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t a g e n t m i g h t h a v e b e e n o n a Af i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n . @

I d . ( n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . 2 6 7 U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M o r t o n S a l t C o . , 3 3 8 U . S . 6 3 2 , 6 4 2 - 4 3 ( 1 9 5 0 ) ( r e f e r r i n g t o g r a n d j u r y ) . 2 6 8 S e e s u p r a n o t e s E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . - E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t .



Aharvesting@ dynamic.269 They therefore analyze data Aharvest-ed@ from private entities270 in an effort to identify transactional or other patterns which inferentially support the conclusion that particular individuals may be engaging in the suspected illegal activity.271 Some of the data they analyze may pertain to me, but as I have no Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in that data, I cannot challenge its use.272 The procedure in this hypothetical is even more analogous to the general warrants the Fourth Amendment was intended to eliminate.273 But while the procedures in both hypotheticalsCeach a variant of the Aharvesting@ dynamicCare functionally analogous to general warrants, one element is lacking: a violation of privacy. Unless we conclude that the data at issue in scenarios such as these is Aprivate,@ what is hypothesized here can become reality.

2 6 9 S e e s u p r a n o t e s E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . - E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 7 0 T h e y c a n d o t h i s i n a n y o f s e v e r a l w a y s : ( i ) a s k t h e r e l e v a n t p r i v a t e e n t i t i e s t o p r o v i d e t h e m w i t h d a t a s e t s e n c o m p a s s i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l s a n d p a r a m e t e r s t h e y w i s h t o e x p l o r e s o t h e y c a n p e r f o r m t h e a n a l y s i s ; ( i i ) a s k t h e r e l e v a n t p r i v a t e e n t i t i e s t o u s e t h e i r d a t a t o p e r f o r m t h e a n a l y s i s ; o r ( i i i ) u s e d a t a s e t s t h e y h a v e a l r e a d y a c q u i r e d f r o m p r i v a t e e n t i t i e s t o p e r f o r m t h e a n a l y s i s . S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . A s n o t e d e a r l i e r , t h e o f f i c e r s c a n o b t a i n t h e d a t a v o l u n t a r i l y o r t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f n o n - F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p r o c e s s . S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 2 7 1 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 2 7 2 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . A g a i n , t h e r e a r e s t a t u t o r y r e s t r i c t i o n s o n c e r t a i n t y p e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n - g a t h e r i n g . S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 2 7 3 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . T h e p u r e l y i n d i s c r i m i n a t e n a t u r e o f t h i s p r o c e d u r e m a k e s i t m o r e p r e c i s e l y a n a l o g o u s t o t h e w r i t s o f a s s i s t a n c e w h i c h t h e c o l o n i s t d e e p l y r e s e n t e d . S e e , e . g . , L A S S O N , T H E H I S T O R Y A N D D E V E L O P M E N T O F T H E F O U R T H A M E N D M E N T T O T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S

C O N S T I T U T I O N , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 5 4 ( w r i t o f a s s i s t a n c e Aw a s g o o d a s a c o n t i n u o u s l i c e n s e a n d a u t h o r i t y d u r i n g t h e w h o l e l i f e t i m e o f t h e r e i g n i n g s o v e r e i g n @ s o t h e Ad i s c r e t i o n d e l e g a t e d t o t h e o f f i c i a l w a s t h e r e f o r e p r a c t i -c a l l y a b s o l u t e a n d u n l i m i t e d @) .


B. Options What a person knowingly exposes to the public . . . is not a

subject of Fourth Amendment protection. . . .274

If we decide we should address the Aharvesting@ dynamic by adopting a more expansive interpretation of the Fourth Amendment,275 we have to deal with the second issue: How can we possibly find that information I have shared with others is private? The notion seems hopelessly contradictory: I tender in-formation to others, thereby surrendering control over it and assuming the risk that the recipients will disseminate it, but in-sist that it somehow remains Aprivate.@276 To resolve this issue, we must parse the apparent contra-diction. It derives from the Aassumption or risk@ principle artic-ulated in Katz:277 Something is Aprivate@ only as long as I shield it from Apublic@ view.278 Privacy is therefore an oppositional concept; I must take steps to secure my spaces, my activities, and my communications if I am to claim they are Aprivate.@279 But is it also a zero-sum concept? That is, can I share my spac-es, my activities and my communications with (some) others and still legitimately claim they are Aprivate?@ Does the Fourth Amendment encompass a concept of Ashared privacy@? Or is there no middle ground between Aprivate@ and Apublic?@ We actually have very little guidance on this issue. The Katz

2 7 4 K a t z v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 8 9 U . S . 3 4 7 , 3 5 1 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . 2 7 5 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . A . 2 7 6 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . 2 7 7 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t ; s e e a l s o S e c t i o n I I , s u p r a . 2 7 8 S e e i d . 2 7 9 S e e , e . g . , S u s a n W . B r e n n e r , T h e P r i v a c y P r i v i l e g e : L a w E n f o r c e m e n t , T e c h n o l o g y a n d t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , 7 U . F L A . J . T E C H . L . & P O L ' Y 1 2 4 , 1 6 8 - 8 2 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , h t t p : / / g r o v e . u f l . e d u / ~ t e c h l a w / v o l 7 / i s s u e 2 / b r e n n e r . p d f .



Court talked about Apublic@ view, but did not define Apublic.@280 Inferentially, however, it is clear that I do not forfeit my Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy if I expose my spaces, my activities and my communications to Asome@ others; the critical distinction seems to be between controlled exposure to those with whom I have a relationship and promiscuous exposure to a generalized public.281 This distinction is implicit in decisions that have recognized a reasonable expectation of privacy in premises shared by those who have some type of relationship (family, houseguests, roommates).282 It is clear that I do not surrender my Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy by

2 8 0 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 2 8 1 S e e , e . g . , M a r y I . C o o m b s , S h a r e d P r i v a c y a n d t h e F o u r t h A m e n d -m e n t , O r t h e R i g h t s o f R e l a t i o n s h i p s , 7 5 C A L . L . R E V . 1 5 9 3 , 1 6 1 8 ( 1 9 8 7 ) :

T h e e x a c t c o n t o u r s o f . . . s h a r e d p r i v a c i e s r e m a i n t o b e e x p l o r e d . C l e a r l y , h o w e v e r , w h e r e t h e c l a i m a n t i s p a r t o f a s u f f i c i e n t l y s m a l l a n d i n t i m a t e g r o u p t h a t s h a r e s a p l a c e , s h e h a s a n e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y t h e r e t h a t s h o u l d b e r e c o g n i z e d . F o r e x a m p l e , a s s u m e t h a t a h u s b a n d h a s s o l e l e g a l o w n e r s h i p o f t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e . F e w w o u l d d i s p u t e t h a t h i s w i f e , o r a d u l t c h i l d l i v i n g a t h o m e , s h o u l d b e a b l e t o c h a l l e n g e a s e a r c h o f t h a t h o m e .

I d . ( n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . 2 8 2 S e e , e . g . , M i n n e s o t a v . O l s o n , 4 9 5 U . S . 9 1 , 9 6 - 9 7 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ; s e e a l s o i d . a t 9 8 - 9 9 :

T o h o l d t h a t a n o v e r n i g h t g u e s t h a s a l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n h i s h o s t ' s h o m e m e r e l y r e c o g n i z e s t h e e v e r y d a y e x p e c t a t i o n s o f p r i v a c y t h a t w e a l l s h a r e . S t a y i n g o v e r n i g h t i n a n o t h e r ' s h o m e i s a l o n g s t a n d i n g s o c i a l c u s t o m t h a t s e r v e s f u n c t i o n s r e c o g n i z e d a s v a l u a b l e b y s o c i e t y . W e s t a y i n o t h e r s ' h o m e s w h e n w e t r a v e l t o a s t r a n g e c i t y f o r b u s i n e s s o r p l e a s u r e , w h e n w e v i s i t o u r . . . r e l a t i v e s o u t o f t o w n , w h e n w e a r e i n b e t w e e n j o b s o r h o m e s , o r w h e n w e h o u s e - s i t f o r a f r i e n d . W e w i l l a l l b e h o s t s a n d w e w i l l a l l b e g u e s t s m a n y t i m e s i n o u r l i v e s . F r o m e i t h e r p e r s p e c t i v e , w e t h i n k t h a t s o c i e t y r e c o g n i z e s t h a t a h o u s e g u e s t h a s a l e g i t i m a t e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n h i s h o s t ' s h o m e .

I d . T h i s n o t i o n o f s h a r e d , r e l a t i o n a l p r i v a c y i s a l s o e v i d e n t i n S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c i s i o n s r e c o g n i z i n g t h e p r i v a c y i n h e r e n t i n o u r Ai n t i m a t e a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s . @ S e e , e . g . , K e n d a l l T h o m a s , B e y o n d t h e P r i v a c y P r i n c i p l e , 9 2 C O L U M . L . R E V . 1 4 3 1 , 1 4 4 5 - 4 6 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( q u o t i n g B o w e r s v . H a r d w i c k , 4 7 8 U . S . 1 8 6 , 2 0 6 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( B l a c k m u n , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ) .


Aknowingly expos[ing]@283 my spaces, my activities and my communications to those with whom I share a home, for exam-ple.284 As Justice Scalia said in O'Connor v. Ortega, A[i]t is privacy that is protected by the Fourth Amendment, not soli-tude. A man enjoys Fourth Amendment protection in his home . . . even though his wife and children have the run of the place . . . .@285 There is, therefore, a middle ground between Aprivate@ and Apublic@; I can claim Fourth Amendment privacy without hav-ing to exclude everyone from my spaces, my activities, and my communications.286 But this notion of Ashared privacy@ seems to be limited; currently, the only relationship that clearly supports a non-zero-sum conception of privacy is the intimate relationship that exists between those who reside together.287 2 8 3 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 8 4 S e e s u p r a n o t e s E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . - ; s e e a l s o C o o m b s , s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . , a t 1 6 1 8 ( AO n e r e a s o n w e p r o t e c t t h e l e g a l r i g h t t o e x c l u d e o t h e r s i s t o e m p o w e r t h e o w n e r t o c h o o s e t o s h a r e h i s h o m e o r o t h e r p r o p e r t y w i t h h i s i n t i m a t e s @) ; J a m e s B . W h i t e , T h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t a s a W a y o f T a l k i n g A b o u t P e o p l e : A S t u d y o f R o b i n s o n a n d M a t l o c k , 1 9 7 4 S U P . C T . R E V . 1 6 5 , 2 1 7 ( AP a r t o f t h e . . . p e r s o n a l p r i v a c y i s . . . s o c i a l o r c o m m u n a l p r i v a c y , t h e i n t e r e s t p e o p l e h a v e i n t h e s e c u r i t y o f t h e i r a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r s h a r i n g w h a t t h e y h a v e w i t h o t h e r s . @) . I d o a s s u m e t h e r i s k o f t r e a c h e r y o n t h e p a r t o f t h o s e w i t h w h o m I s h a r e m y h o m e . I f , f o r e x a m p l e , m y s p o u s e d e c i d e s t o c o l l e c t e v i d e n c e o f m y c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y f r o m o u r h o m e a n d t a k e i t t o t h e p o l i c e , I c a n n o t c o m p l a i n . M y p r i v a c y m a y h a v e b e e n c o m p r o m i s e d , b u t n o t b y s t a t e a c t o r s . S e e , e . g . , C o o l i d g e v . N e w H a m p s h i r e , 4 0 3 U . S . 4 4 3 , 4 8 7 - 9 0 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . 2 8 5 O ' C o n n o r v . O r t e g a , 4 8 0 U . S . 7 0 9 , 7 3 0 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ( S c a l i a , J . , c o n c u r r i n g ) . 2 8 6 F o r m o r e o n t h i s , s e e i n f r a S e c t i o n I I I . B . 2 . 2 8 7 S e e , e . g . , R e a r d o n v . W r o a n , 8 1 1 F . 2 d 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 2 7 n . 2 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t m e m b e r s o f f r a t e r n i t y h a d a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t h e i r f r a t e r n i t y h o u s e b e c a u s e a f r a t e r n i t y i s a n e x c l u s i v e l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t w i t h t h e g o a l o f m a x i m i z i n g t h e p r i v a c y o f i t s a f f a i r s ) . I n O ' C o n n o r v . O r t e g a , a m a j o r i t y o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t a p h y s i c i a n h a d a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n h i s o f f i c e , b u t o n l y b e c a u s e h e Ad i d n o t s h a r e h i s d e s k o r f i l e c a b i n e t w i t h a n y o t h e r



That is no doubt because this principle is artefactual; the Fourth Amendment and its common law antecedents were, after all, primarily concerned with protecting the Acastle,@ the home, from unauthorized government intrusions.288 How, you may ask, does this narrow non-zero sum conception of privacy pertain to our inquiry into whether we can adopt the more expansive interpretation of the Fourth Amendment that is needed to address the consequences of pervasive technology?289 It gives us a second alternative, so that we have two conceivable ways of frustrating the Aharvesting@ scenario:290 one is to continue to rely on the Aassumption of risk@ calculus and put the onus on individuals to prevent identifiable personal data from leaking into the Apublic@ domain,291 and the other is to expand the non-zero sum conception of privacy outlined above so it protects the sharing of personal information in rela-tionships other than those based on common occupancy of a home. These alternatives are examined below.

e m p l o y e e s . @ O ` C o n n o r , 4 8 0 U . S . a t 7 1 8 - 1 9 . 2 8 8 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . S e e , e . g . , O y s t e d v . S h e d , 1 3 M a s s . 5 2 0 , 5 2 2 - 2 3 ( M a s s . 1 8 1 6 ) :

T h e a u t h o r i t i e s d o n o t c l e a r l y s h o w w h a t p e r s o n s a r e c o n s i d e r e d a s b e l o n g -i n g t o t h e f a m i l y o f a h o u s e h o l d e r , a n d s o h a v i n g a r i g h t t o p r o t e c t i o n u n d e r h i s c a s t l e . T h e v e r y l e a r n e d j u d g e s , F o s t e r , H a l e , a n d C o k e . . . s a y , t h a t t h e o u t e r d o o r s o r w i n d o w s s h a l l n o t b e f o r c e d b y a n o f f i c e r , i n t h e e x e c u t i o n o f c i v i l p r o c e s s a g a i n s t t h e o c c u p i e r o r a n y o f h i s f a m i l y , w h o h a v e t h e i r d o m i c i l o r o r d i n a r y r e s i d e n c e t h e r e . . . . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s , n o t o n l y t h e c h i l d r e n a n d t h e d o m e s t i c s e r v a n t s o f t h e o c c u p i e r a r e . . . e n t i t l e d t o p r o t e c t i o n ; b u t , a l s o , p e r m a n e n t b o a r d e r s , o r t h o s e w h o h a v e m a d e t h e h o u s e t h e i r h o m e , m a y p r o p e r l y b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a p a r t o f t h e f a m i l y .

I d . a t 5 2 2 - 2 3 2 8 9 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 2 9 0 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . A . 2 9 1 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t ; s e e a l s o S e c t i o n I I , s u p r a .


1. Risk

If we apply the Aassumption of risk@ calculus,292 the only way we, as individuals, can frustrate the Aharvesting@ dynamic is to ensure that our personal information does not fall into the hands of third-parties, e.g., service providers, online merchants, etc.293 This approach in effect continues the spatial conception of privacy: If I use barriers and other devices to shield my in-formation from others, it is private; if I do not employ such efforts, or if they are futile, I knowingly expose my information to Apublic@ view and it loses any claim to Fourth Amendment protection.294 The problem with this approach is that the Aassumption of risk@ calculus is an unreasonable methodology for a non-spatial world. It assumes, as noted earlier, that I have a choice: to reveal information by leaving it unprotected or to shield it from Apublic@ view.295 In the real, physical world, these options make sense: I can shield my activities from public scrutiny by drawing the curtains in my living room, installing a fence around my backyard, putting lock on my doors, etc. Inherent in the Aassumption of risk@ calculus is the assumption that I am able to withdraw information about myself (my activities, my health, my preferences) from the public domain. This assump-tion will continue to retain its validity for the spatially-based activities of my life: I can frustrate my nosy neighbor's attempt to ascertain what I do in the evenings by closing the curtains and employing whatever other devices real-world technology gives me to exclude the physically prying eye. But how can I do this in a world of pervasive technology, a world in which I am necessarily surrounded by devices that collect data and share it 2 9 2 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t ; s e e a l s o S e c t i o n I I , s u p r a . 2 9 3 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . A . 2 9 4 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t ; s e e a l s o S e c t i o n I I , s u p r a . 2 9 5 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . B .



with external entities? This is the Smith-Miller problem:296 In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that Smith had no Aexpectation of privacy@ in the numbers he dialed from his home telephone.297 The Court held that Smith Avoluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and `exposed' that information . . . . In so doing,@ he Aassumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.@298 The problem with this holding is that it erroneously assumes Smith had a choice. In fact, since had no way to shield the numbers he dialed from the telephone company, the only choice Smith had to minimize his risk of being observed was to leave home and use a pay phone.299 That may seem a trivial matter, but consider the implications this decision has for life in a world of more pervasive technology: I install an alarm system in my home; it lets the security company monitor my routines (when I retire and arm the system, when I rise and disarm it), my comings and goings (arming and disarming the system each time) and the extent to which I give others access to my home (canceling false alarms, adding new user codes, etc.). Under Smith, I have no reason-

2 9 6 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . 2 9 7 S e e S m i t h v . M a r y l a n d , 4 4 2 U . S . 7 3 5 , 7 4 4 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; s e e a l s o s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . 2 9 8 S m i t h , 4 4 2 U . S . a t 7 4 4 . S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . 2 9 9 S e e , e . g . , S m i t h , 4 4 2 U . S . a t 7 4 9 - 5 0 ( M a r s h a l l , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) :

I m p l i c i t i n t h e c o n c e p t o f a s s u m p t i o n o f r i s k i s s o m e n o t i o n o f c h o i c e . A t l e a s t i n t h e t h i r d - p a r t y c o n s e n s u a l s u r v e i l l a n c e c a s e s , w h i c h f i r s t i n c o r -p o r a t e d r i s k a n a l y s i s i n t o F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t d o c t r i n e , t h e d e f e n d a n t p r e -s u m a b l y h a d e x e r c i s e d s o m e d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c i d i n g w h o s h o u l d e n j o y h i s c o n f i d e n t i a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . B y c o n t r a s t h e r e , u n l e s s a p e r s o n i s p r e p a r e d t o f o r g o u s e o f w h a t f o r m a n y h a s b e c o m e a p e r s o n a l o r p r o f e s s i o n a l n e c e s s i t y , h e c a n n o t h e l p b u t a c c e p t t h e r i s k o f s u r v e i l l a n c e . I t i s i d l e t o s p e a k o f ` a s s u m i n g ' r i s k s i n c o n t e x t s w h e r e , a s a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , i n d i v i d u a l s h a v e n o r e a l i s t i c a l t e r n a t i v e .

I d . ( c i t i n g L o p e z v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 7 3 U . S . 4 2 7 ( 1 9 6 3 ) ; H o f f a v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 8 5 U . S . 2 9 3 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . W h i t e , 4 0 1 U . S . 4 7 5 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) ) .


able expectation of privacy in the data gathered by the security company because I voluntarily allowed the company to collect this information without encrypting or otherwise shielding it from their review; of course, if I did that (assuming I was able to do so), it would frustrate the purpose of the alarm system. My only choices under Smith, therefore, are to (i) trade security for privacy or (ii) trade privacy for security.300 The evolution and proliferation of more pervasive, more complex technologies will present us with other, equally-illogi-cal choices. If I am elderly and choose to live in one of the Asmart homes@ currently being developed, have I surrendered all privacy? The home monitors my activities, my intake of food and medications, my temperature, my sleep and wake cycles, my interactions with vendors and with friends; its embedded systems interact with me and, in so doing, compile data contin-ually.301 The home uses this data to assess whether I need assistance, perhaps to order food and other necessities for me and to call for assistance if I seem ill or injured. In so doing, it shares data about me with its central control center and with a host of other entities. By choosing to live in such a home, again for the sake of security, have I surrendered all privacy in the data it compiles?302 This question arises for any technology that results in the collection of personal data.303 Essentially, Smith presents us with a Hobson's choice:304 Embrace technology and surrender 3 0 0 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 3 0 1 S e e , e . g . , C o r y D . K i d d , e t a l . , T h e A w a r e H o m e : A L i v i n g L a b o r a t o r y f o r U b i q u i t o u s C o m p u t i n g R e s e a r c h 7 , G E O R G I A I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y C T H E A W A R E

H O M E R E S E A R C H I N I T I A T I V E ( 1 9 9 9 ) , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / w w w . c c . g a t e c h . e d u / f c e / a h r i / p u b l i c a t i o n s / c o b u i l d 9 9 _ f i n a l . P D F ( AA n i m p o r t a n t i s s u e t h a t m u s t b e a d -d r e s s e d . . . i s . . . p r i v a c y . T h e h o m e i s c o n s t a n t l y m o n i t o r i n g t h e o c c u p a n t s ' w h e r e a b o u t s a n d a c t i v i t i e s , u s i n g a u d i o a n d v i d e o o b s e r v a t i o n m e t h o d s , a n d e v e n t r a c k i n g i t s i n h a b i t a n t s ' m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n s @) . 3 0 2 T h e s a m e q u e s t i o n a r i s e s , o f c o u r s e , i f I c h o o s e t o l i v e i n s u c h a h o m e m e r e l y b e c a u s e o f c o n v e n i e n c e . 3 0 3 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . A . 3 0 4 A H o b s o n ' s c h o i c e i s a c h o i c e w i t h n o r e a l a l t e r n a t i v e . S e e H o b s o n ' s



privacy in the data it compiles and disseminates or reject tech-nology and thereby prevent the exposure of one's personal data. The problem with this equation is that one must become a Luddite to frustrate the Aharvesting@ dynamic.305 It ignores the fact that we are not living in the seventeenth century; we live in an environment in which technology is an increasingly es-sential, invisible component of our lives.306 There is no twenty-first century analogue of the adhesive envelope.307 I may be able to encrypt the contents of my communications,308 but I cannot shield my online activity from my service provider, conceal the nature and extent of my online purchases, or mask information generated by systems in my home, my office, and my vehicle. There can, therefore, be no legitimate inference that in sharing that information with that narrow circle I am willing to share it with the entire world or with the govern-ment. Smith is another Olmstead. When Olmstead was decided, the technology was in place but the implications were not clear; by the Supreme Court decided Katz, it had become clear what was at stake in wiretapping. When Smith was decided a quarter of a century ago, the Internet was in its infancy and personal com-puters had yet to appear; the technology was not yet in place, and so the implications were not clear.309 We are now

c h o i c e , D i c t i o n a r y . c o m , a t h t t p : / / d i c t i o n a r y . r e f e r e n c e . c o m / s e a r c h ? r = 1 0 & q = H o b s o n ' s % 2 0 c h o i c e ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) . 3 0 5 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . A . 3 0 6 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . 3 0 7 S e e s u p r a n o t e s E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . - E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 3 0 8 S e e , e . g . , A b o u t H u s h m a i l , H u s h m a i l . c o m , a t h t t p : / / w w w . h u s h m a i l . c o m / a b o u t ? P H P S E S S I D = 9 9 4 c 8 5 b a 6 5 4 a e 9 7 0 7 4 f 2 6 1 d 2 d c e b 5 1 9 0 ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) . 3 0 9 S e e , e . g . , B a r r y M . L e i n e r , e t a l . , A B r i e f H i s t o r y o f t h e I n t e r n e t , a t h t t p : / / w w w . i s o c . o r g / i n t e r n e t / h i s t o r y / b r i e f . s h t m l # I n i t i a l _ C o n c e p t s ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) .


approaching a critical set of issuesCthe effects of technology of an unparalleled sophistication on our privacy. While the Katz Aassumption of risk@ calculus may still be valid for traditional activity in the real, physical world, it cannot be used to operationalize privacy in an era of pervasive technology.310 The sophistication and functionality of these technologies means that the element of choice is lacking. Our only hope, therefore, for frustrating the Aharvesting@ scenario is to expand the non-zero-sum conception of privacy outlined above.311

2. Relationship Smith is another Olmstead conceptually, as well as in the more pragmatic sense noted above.312 The Supreme Court held that Roy Olmstead did not have a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in the content of his telephone communications because he used a Atelephone instrument@ with Aconnecting wires@ to Aproject his voice to those quite outside@ his home.313 The Olmstead majority did not recognize that Olmstead was not broadcasting the content of his communications to the world at large; instead, he was making a controlled, focused disclosure of communicative content to an identified individual over a network inaccessible to one not equipped with specialized interception devices.314 The Katz Court understood this and therefore reversed Olmstead.315 The Smith Court somehow failed to see the analo-gy between Katz conveying substantive data via the telephone

3 1 0 T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h i s , a t l e a s t t o s o m e e x t e n t , w h e n i t h e l d t h a t u s i n g t h e r m a l i m a g i n g t e c h n o l o g y t o d e t e c t i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m i n s i d e a h o m e i s a s e a r c h u n d e r t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t . S e e K y l l o v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 3 3 U . S . 2 7 , 3 4 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( t o h o l d o t h e r w i s e w o u l d Ab e t o p e r m i t p o l i c e t e c h n o l o g y t o e r o d e t h e p r i v a c y g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t @) . 3 1 1 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . B . 3 1 2 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . B . 1 . 3 1 3 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 3 1 4 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 . 3 1 5 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 .



company and Smith conveying switching information to the telephone company.316 If we take the Katz Court at its word, and operate on the premise that the Fourth Amendment pro-tects Apeople, not places,@317 the result should be the same in both cases.318 If substantive, consciously intelligible communi-cation is protected (the conversation), nominally intelligible data should be protected as well. To understand why that is so, we must consider the impli-cations of the non-zero-sum conception of privacy outlined earli-er.319 That so far narrow conception of privacy recognizes a middle ground between Aprivate as sequestered@ and Apublic.@320 It derives from common law principles that anteceded the Fourth Amendment and were intended to secure citizens' right to enjoy the Aintimate activities@ of the home free from arbitrary intrusions by government authorities.321 As noted earlier, these common law principles recognized a concept of Ashared privacy@ based upon certain relationshipsCe.g., family members,

3 1 6 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . ; s e e a l s o S e c t i o n I . A . 3 . 3 1 7 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 3 1 8 S e e , e . g . , S m i t h , 4 4 2 U . S . a t 7 5 2 ( M a r s h a l l , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) :

J u s t a s o n e w h o e n t e r s a p u b l i c t e l e p h o n e b o o t h i s ` e n t i t l e d t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e w o r d s h e u t t e r s i n t o t h e m o u t h p i e c e w i l l n o t b e b r o a d c a s t t o t h e w o r l d , ' . . . s o t o o , h e s h o u l d b e e n t i t l e d t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e n u m b e r s h e d i a l s i n t h e p r i v a c y o f h i s h o m e w i l l b e r e c o r d e d . . . s o l e l y f o r t h e p h o n e c o m p a n y ' s b u s i n e s s p u r p o s e s . A c c o r d i n g l y , I w o u l d r e q u i r e l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s t o o b t a i n a w a r r a n t b e f o r e t h e y e n l i s t t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n i e s t o s e -c u r e i n f o r m a t i o n o t h e r w i s e b e y o n d t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s r e a c h .

I d . ( q u o t i n g K a t z , 3 8 9 U . S . a t 3 5 2 ) . 3 1 9 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . B . 3 2 0 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . B . 3 2 1 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . S e e , e . g . , U n i t e d S t a t e s v . D u n n , 4 8 0 U . S . 2 9 4 , 3 0 1 n . 4 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ( F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t t h e Ai n t i m a t e a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d o m e s t i c l i f e a n d t h e p r i v a c i e s o f t h e h o m e @) ; D o w C h e m i c a l C o . v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 4 7 6 U . S . 2 2 7 , 2 3 6 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t s t h e Ai n t i -m a t e a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f a m i l y p r i v a c y a n d t h e h o m e @) ; s e e a l s o s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . B .


servants, guestsCand this concept was implicitly incorporated into the Fourth Amendment.322 Building on Ex parte Jackson,323 the Katz Court recognized that this shared privacy was portable, i.e., could survive trans-mission from one private enclave (home, office, telephone booth) to another.324 Interestingly, neither of the communications at issue in these cases involved the Aintimate activities@ of the home, the original locus of shared privacy: Ireland Jackson mailed a lottery circular,325 and Charles Katz was a bookie who called a gambler to place bets for his customers.326 Both cases recognized a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in the content of secure communicationsCincluding Acommercial@ communicationsCthat are in transit to another. The fact that the contents were to be revealed to another person was not fatal because the sender had taken steps to ensure that the information was only communicated to that person; both Jack-son and Katz, in other words, were attempting to make a con-trolled disclosure of information to another person. Now, one can argue that the result in these cases is irrelevant to the point under consideration hereCthe privacy of information conveyed to third partiesCbecause both of these cases were concerned with Asealed@ information that had not yet been revealed to another. Viewed in this light, these cases can be seen as involving nothing more than an application of the

3 2 2 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . B . 3 2 3 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 1 . 3 2 4 S e e s u p r a '' I ( A ) ( 1 ) a n d I ( A ) ( 3 ) ; s e e a l s o K a t z , 3 8 9 U . S . a t 3 5 2 ( c i t i n g J a c k s o n f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t w h a t o n e s e e k s t o p r e s e r v e a s p r i v a t e , e v e n i n a Ap u b l i c @ a r e a , c a n b e p r o t e c t e d b y t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t ) . 3 2 5 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 1 . J a c k s o n w a s i n d i c t e d f o r Au n l a w f u l l y d e p o s i t i n g . . . i n t h e m a i l o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . . . a c i r c u l a r c o n c e r n i n g a l o t t e r y . . . e n c l o s e d i n a n e n v e l o p e a d d r e s s e d t o o n e J . K e t c h a m , a t G l o v e r s v i l l e , N e w Y o r k . @ E x p a r t e J a c k s o n , 9 6 U . S . 7 2 7 , 7 2 7 ( 1 8 7 7 ) . 3 2 6 S e e , e . g . , W i l l i a m W . G r e e n h a l g h & M a r k J . Y o s t , I n D e f e n s e o f t h e AP e r S e @ R u l e : J u s t i c e S t e w a r t ' s S t r u g g l e t o P r e s e r v e t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t ' s W a r r a n t C l a u s e , 3 1 A M . C R I M . L . R E V . 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 6 8 ( 1 9 9 4 ) .



Aassumption of risk@ principle:327 By employing measures to secure (adhesive envelope, phone booth)328 the contents of their communications, Jackson and Katz had a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in their contents until they reached their respective destinations. In this view, the contents of Jackson's circular and of Katz's calls were private only while they were in transit; once they reached the recipients they were no longer private because they had been communicated to another person. But why must it follow that a Aprivate@ communication inevitably ceases to be private once the information it contains has been received? This proposition apparently rests on the assumption that by revealing information to another I assume the risk she will prove unfaithful and reveal that information to the police. But we recognize a narrow concept of shared privacy which encompasses communications and activities we reveal to those with whom we share the Aintimate activities@ of the home, even though they, too, could prove unfaithful. This concept of shared privacy is so embedded in our history and culture that the reasons for its existence are seldom articu-lated.329 Clearly, though, it is based on two considerations: (1) It facilitates intimacy and security in our domestic lives, which would be poor and solitary330 if we had to shield our every word and action from those with whom we live; and (2) it encom-passes disclosures made to those with whom we share a relationship that makes it Areasonable@ to assume they will respect the limited nature of these disclosures.331 These consid- 3 2 7 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t ; s e e a l s o S e c t i o n I I , s u p r a . 3 2 8 S e e s u p r a '' I ( A ) ( 1 ) a n d I ( A ) ( 3 ) . 3 2 9 S e e g e n e r a l l y s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . B . 3 3 0 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . I n L e v i a t h a n , T h o m a s H o b b e s d e s c r i b e d t h e l i f e o f m a n i n a s t a t e o f n a t u r e a s As o l i t a r y , p o o r , n a s t y , b r u t i s h , a n d s h o r t . @ T H O M A S H O B B E S , L E V I A T H A N , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / o r e g o n s t a t e . e d u / i n s t r u c t / p h l 3 0 2 / t e x t s / h o b b e s / l e v i a t h a n -c . h t m l # C H A P T E R X I I I ( l a s t v i s i t e d A u g . 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 ) . 3 3 1 S e e g e n e r a l l y s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . B .


erations differentiate this shared domestic privacy from the line of cases in which the Supreme Court has held that wrongdoers assume the risk of the disclosures they make to our criminal associates.332 Recognizing shared privacy among criminal confreres would serve no useful purpose and would run contrary to the pragmatic observation that there is no honor among thieves. We may want miscreants to betray each other, but that should not be true for other, legitimate relationships. Trust is a funda-mental principle of democracy; we need to be able to trust those with whom we have certain relationships, and we need to be able to trust that law enforcement will respect those rela-tionships.333 Otherwise, we descend into a state of paranoia and keep each other at arm's length;334 this is the basic flaw in the Aassumption of risk@ principle. In a world of evolving technolo-gy, it results in an Aarm's race@ in which I have a reasonable expectation of privacy only as long as and insofar as my tech-nology successfully frustrates law enforcement efforts to subject my activities to scrutiny.335 And there is nothing I can do to

3 3 2 S e e , e . g . , H o f f a v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 8 5 U . S . 2 9 3 , 3 0 2 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ( F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t p r o t e c t Aa w r o n g d o e r ' s m i s p l a c e d b e l i e f t h a t a p e r s o n t o w h o m h e v o l u n t a r i l y c o n f i d e s h i s w r o n g d o i n g w i l l n o t r e v e a l i t . @) . 3 3 3 S e e , e . g . , E r i k L u n a , T r a n s p a r e n t P o l i c i n g , 8 5 I O W A L . R E V . 1 1 0 7 , 1 1 5 8 - 6 0 ( 2 0 0 0 ) :

T r u s t i s . . . a f u n d a m e n t a l i n g r e d i e n t o f m o d e r n l i b e r a l d e m o c r a c y , w i t h s o c i a l c o n t r a c t t h e o r i s t s m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t c o n s e n t g r o u n d e d i n p u b l i c t r u s t p r o v i d e s t h e v e r y b a s i s f o r g o v e r n m e n t a l a u t h o r i t y . . . . D i s t r u s t l e a d s t o t h e s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d a t o m i z a t i o n o f t h e c i t i z e n r y a n d a l a c k o f c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h i n t h e c o m m u n i t y . M o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , p o p u l a r m i s t r u s t o f g o v e r n m e n t u n d e r -m i n e s t h e p e r c e i v e d l e g i t i m a c y o f t h e l a w , w h i c h i n t u r n r e d u c e s p u b l i c c o m -p l i a n c e w i t h l e g a l c o m m a n d s .

I d . ( n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . 3 3 4 S e e s u p r a n o t e 3 3 3 . 3 3 5 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . B . 1 . S e e , e . g . , S c o t t G r a n n e m a n , E m a i l P r i v a c y I s L o s t , S E C U R I T Y F O C U S ( J u l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 ) , a t h t t p : / / w w w . s e c u r i t y f o c u s . c o m / c o l u m n i s t s / 2 5 8 ( AT h i s i s a n a r m s r a c e . E v e r y t i m e t h e t e c h n o l o g y c h a n g e s t o e n a b l e f u r t h e r s u r v e i l l a n c e , s o m e t h i n g h a p p e n s t o r e n d e r t h a t s u r v e i l l a n c e i n o p e r a -



maintain informational privacy336 as long as we insist that any disclosure of information not encompassed by the narrow con-ception of shared privacy outlined earlier automatically puts that information in the Apublic@ domain.337 Can we alter the latter principle? Would it be Areasonable@ to incorporate another, broader conception of shared privacy into the Fourth Amendment in order to protect the privacy of information I share with certain third parties? Would such a step be fundamentally inconsistent with the history and pur-poses of the Fourth Amendment? We could extrapolate such a principle from the narrower conception of shared privacy that anteceded and was implicitly incorporated into the Fourth Amendment. The critical issue is deciding how far we want to go in protecting information held by various third parties. Let us begin with the easiest case. The current conception of shared privacy evolved to protect the Aintimate activities@ of the home and, as such, encompassed those who were privy to such activities, e.g., family, houseguests, and servants.338 We cannot Areasonably@ construe third-party information holders as family members or houseguests because the familial and residential ties are lacking; even entities that provide alarm and other services and that will interact with systems in Asmart homes@ do so remotely, from some other physical location. But these entities are functionally analogous to Aservants@ who are also encompassed by this conception of shared privacy; unlike the servants of centuries ago, they do not reside in the home, but they provide services that promote and sustain activities within the home. And we maintain a relationship with them that is analogous to the relationship householders of the common law era maintained with their servants; the basis of this

b l e . . . a t l e a s t u n t i l t h e n e x t t e c h n o l o g i c a l c h a n g e . @) . 3 3 6 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 3 3 7 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . 3 3 8 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . B .


relationship is a pecuniary arrangement, but it also involves continuity and trust. We rely on Aservant@ entities for support; we may sometimes switch between entities, but this is the exception; our preferred mode is one of stability in which we have established, ongoing relationships with entities that provide the various types of support we require. It is reasonable to anticipate that the continuity of these relationships will increase as we come to rely on increasingly complex, interdependent technologies; it is one thing to change our telephone company, quite another to modify a multi-functional network.339 The other notable feature of these relationships is trust:340 We give those with whom we have established such a relationship access to personal, Apri-vate@ information so they can discharge the functions for which they are employed.341 We do, as the Smith Court said, volun- 3 3 9 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . 3 4 0 S e e , e . g . , S t a t e v . H u n t , 9 1 N . J . 3 3 8 , 3 4 6 - 4 7 , 4 5 0 A . 2 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 6 ( 1 9 8 2 ) :

T h e t e l e p h o n e c a l l e r i s . . . e n t i t l e d t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e n u m b e r s h e d i a l s i n t h e p r i v a c y o f h i s h o m e w i l l b e r e c o r d e d s o l e l y f o r t h e t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y ' s b u s i n e s s p u r p o s e s . F r o m t h e v i e w p o i n t o f t h e c u s t o m e r , a l l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h h e f u r n i s h e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a p a r t i c u l a r c a l l i s p r i v a t e . T h e n u m b e r s d i a l e d a r e p r i v a t e . T h e c a l l i s m a d e f r o m a p e r s o n ' s h o m e o r o f f i c e , l o c a t i o n s e n t i t l e d t o p r o t e c t i o n u n d e r . . . A r t i c l e I , p a r . 7 o f t h e N e w J e r s e y C o n s t i t u t i o n .

I d . 3 4 1 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I . S o m e s t a t e s h a v e r e c o g n i z e d a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n t h i r d - p a r t y r e c o r d s u n d e r t h e i r o w n c o n s t i t u t i o n s . S e e , e . g . , S t a t e v . M c A l l i s t e r , 3 6 6 N . J . S u p e r . 2 5 1 , 2 6 4 - 6 5 , 8 4 0 A . 2 d 9 6 7 , 9 7 5 - 7 6 ( 2 0 0 4 ) :

[ W ] e h o l d t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y i n a p e r s o n ' s b a n k r e c o r d s . . . . W e a r e i n f u l l a c c o r d w i t h J u s t i c e M o s k ' s a r t i c u l a t i o n o f t h e p e r v a s i v e n e s s o f t h e n e e d t o m a k e a n d m a i n t a i n b a n k r e c o r d s a s a n i n c i d e n t o f p r i v a t e , p e r s o n a l f i n a n c i a l l i f e a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n . . . i n m o d e r n e c o n o m i c l i f e . . . . T h e d i s c o m f o r t i n f i n d i n g a s t r a n g e r p o r i n g o v e r o n e ' s c h e c k b o o k , d e p o s i t s l i p s a n d c a n c e l l e d c h e c k s i s e q u a l t o s e e i n g s o m e o n e . . . r e v i e w i n g a l i s t o f d i a l e d t e l e p h o n e n u m b e r s c a l l e d f r o m h o m e . . . . B a n k s , l i k e t e l e p h o n e s , a r e



a n e x t e n s i o n o f o n e ' s d e s k o r h o m e o f f i c e . I n d e e d , a s i n t h e c a s e o f t h e t e l e p h o n e , t e c h n o l o g i c a l a d v a n c e s i n t h e f o r m o f p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s w i t h a c c e s s t o t h e i n t e r n e t a n d e l e c t r o n i c b a n k i n g s e r v i c e s h a v e m a d e t h o s e s e r -v i c e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e h o m e s o f i t s d e p o s i t o r s . B a n k r e c o r d s k e p t a t h o m e c o u l d n o t b e s e i z e d i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a d u l y i s s u e d s e a r c h w a r r a n t b a s e d u p o n p r o b a b l e c a u s e a n d t h e y s h o u l d n o t b e v u l n e r a b l e t o v i e w i n g , c o p y i n g , s e i z u r e o r r e t r i e v a l s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e y a r e r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e a t a b a n k . F i n a l l y , t h e f a c t t h a t f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s a r e m e m o r i a l i z e d i n w r i t t e n r e c o r d s o f b a n k s o r m a i n t a i n e d i n t h e i r e l e c t r o n i c d a t a s y s t e m s t o w h i c h , a s p a r t o f i t s l e g i t i m a t e b u s i n e s s , a b a n k ' s e m p l o y e e s h a v e a c c e s s , d o e s n o t s u g g e s t t h a t p e r s o n s h a v e a n y s e n s e t h a t t h e i r p r i v a t e a n d p e r s o n a l t r a i t s a n d a f f a i r s a r e l e s s c o n f i d e n t i a l w h e n t h e y d e a l w i t h t h e i r b a n k t h a n w h e n t h e y m a k e t e l e -p h o n e c a l l s . . . . T h e r e p o s e o f c o n f i d e n c e i n a b a n k g o e s b e y o n d e n t r u s t m e n t o f m o n e y , b u t e x t e n d s t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l e x c e p t a s m a y b e r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y t o c o n d u c t c u s -t o m a r y b a n k b u s i n e s s .

I d . ( c i t i n g B u r r o w s v . S u p e r i o r C o u r t , 1 3 C a l . 3 d 2 3 8 , 1 1 8 C a l . R p t r . 1 6 6 , 1 7 2 , 5 2 9 P . 2 d 5 9 0 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ) . S t a t e s h a v e a l s o r e j e c t e d t h e l o g i c o f S m i t h . S e e , e . g . , P e o p l e v . S p o e r l e d e r , 6 6 6 P . 2 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 1 ( 1 9 8 3 ) :

A t e l e p h o n e i s a n e c e s s a r y c o m p o n e n t o f m o d e r n l i f e . I t i s a p e r s o n a l a n d b u s i n e s s n e c e s s i t y i n d i s p e n s a b l e t o o n e ' s a b i l i t y t o e f f e c t i v e l y c o m m u n i c a t e i n t o d a y ' s c o m p l e x s o c i e t y . W h e n a t e l e p h o n e c a l l i s m a d e , i t i s a s i f t w o p e o p l e a r e h a v i n g a c o n v e r s a t i o n i n t h e p r i v a c y o f t h e h o m e o r o f f i c e . . . . T h e c o n c o m i t a n t d i s c l o s u r e t o t h e t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y , f o r i n t e r n a l b u s i n e s s p u r p o s e s , o f t h e n u m b e r s d i a l e d b y t h e t e l e p h o n e s u b s c r i b e r d o e s n o t a l t e r t h e c a l l e r ' s e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y a n d t r a n s p o s e i t i n t o a n a s s u m e d r i s k o f d i s c l o s u r e t o t h e g o v e r n m e n t . . . . W e v i e w t h e d i s c l o s u r e t o t h e t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y o f t h e n u m b e r d i a l e d a s s i m p l y t h e u n a v o i d a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e s u b s c r i b e r ' s u s e o f t h e t e l e p h o n e a s a m e a n s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . . . . A n y u s e t h e t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y m i g h t m a k e o f s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n f o r i t s o w n i n t e r n a l a c c o u n t i n g p u r p o s e s i s f a r d i f -f e r e n t f r o m g o v e r n m e n t a l e v i d e n c e g a t h e r i n g . . . . . . . . O n e ' s d i s c l o s u r e o f c e r t a i n f a c t s t o t h e t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y a s a n e c e s s a r y c o n c o m i t a n t f o r u s i n g a n i n s t r u m e n t o f p r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n h a r d l y s u p p o r t s t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e c o m p a n y w i l l v o l u n t a r i l y c o n v e y t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t o o t h e r s . T e l e p h o n e c o m p a n i e s a r e i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f p r o v i d i n g t e l e p h o n e s u b s c r i b e r s w i t h t h e e q u i p m e n t n e c e s s a r y f o r e l e c t r o n i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n t o d a y ' s w o r l d . . . . T h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n a c -


tarily convey information to these entities,342 but we do not do so recklessly, or promiscuously; we convey information to our Aservant@ entities in a secure fashion intending that it be used only for the purpose of allowing the entity to perform the ser-vices for which we have contracted.343 We trust our Aservant@ entities not to reveal our personal information to tabloids, disgruntled relatives, and other Acivil-ians,@ and they generally live up to our expectations. Why, then, is this relationship, and the information it generates, not within the Fourth Amendment?344 The obvious response to this question is that bringing this relationship within the Fourth Amendment is unnecessary since these entities are not obli-gated to provide this information to law enforcement. This, however, ignores reality.345 A private entity may find it unset-tling to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement, or may not understand the consequences of doing so, in terms of larger-

q u i r e d b y t h e t e l e p h o n e c o m p a n y w i l l n o t b e t r a n s f e r r e d . . . t o t h e g o v -e r n m e n t f o r u s e a g a i n s t t h e t e l e p h o n e s u b s c r i b e r a p p e a r s t o u s t o b e a n e m i n e n t l y r e a s o n a b l e o n e .

I d . ; s e e a l s o S t a t e v . T h o m p s o n , 1 1 4 I d a h o 7 4 6 , 7 5 0 - 5 1 , 7 6 0 P . 2 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 6 - 6 7 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ( u s e o f a p e n r e g i s t e r i s a s e a r c h r e q u i r i n g a w a r r a n t u n d e r I d a h o C o n s t i t u -t i o n ) . 3 4 2 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . B . 3 4 3 S e e S m i t h , 4 4 2 U . S . a t 7 4 9 ( M a r s h a l l , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) : AP r i v a c y i s n o t a d i s c r e t e c o m m o d i t y , p o s s e s s e d a b s o l u t e l y o r n o t a t a l l . T h o s e w h o d i s c l o s e c e r t a i n f a c t s t o a b a n k o r p h o n e c o m p a n y f o r a l i m i t e d b u s i n e s s p u r p o s e n e e d n o t a s s u m e t h a t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l b e r e l e a s e d t o o t h e r p e r s o n s f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s . @ S e e , e . g . , S t a t e v . M o l l i c a , 1 1 4 N . J . 3 2 9 , 3 4 4 - 4 5 , 5 5 4 A . 2 d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( p o l i c e m u s t o b t a i n s e a r c h w a r r a n t t o s e c u r e t e l e p h o n e r e c o r d s ) ; s e e a l s o s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 3 4 4 O n e m i g h t a r g u e t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i t s e l f i s n o t w o r t h y o f p r o -t e c t i o n b e c a u s e w h i l e i t i s d a t a t h a t c a n g i v e r i s e t o i n f e r e n c e s a b o u t a c t i v i t i e s t a k i n g p l a c e w i t h i n t h e h o m e , t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n d o e s n o t , i n a n d o f i t s e l f , d e s c r i b e s u c h a c t i v i t i e s . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e j e c t e d a s i m i l a r a r g u m e n t i n K y l l o v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 3 3 U . S . 2 7 , 3 7 ( AT h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t ' s p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e h o m e h a s n e v e r b e e n t i e d t o . . . t h e q u a l i t y . . . o f i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d @) ; s e e a l s o s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 4 . 3 4 5 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . .



scale privacy issues.346 And a subpoena can be used to compel a truly reluctant entity to provide this information without pro-viding the protection accorded under a warrant.347 The critical question is who should bear the risk: the individual (who currently loses privacy by sharing information with external entities) or law enforcement (which will have to dem-onstrate individualized suspicion to obtain shared information if we define it as private).348 If we bring this information within the Fourth Amendment by incorporating a shared privacy prin-ciple into our Fourth Amendment doctrine, we (1) enhance the security of the relationship between individuals and their Aser-vant@ entities, thereby enhancing privacy and trust; and (2) do not put this information totally outside the reach of law en-forcement. Bringing this information within the Fourth Amend-ment simply means that to obtain information from Aservant@ entities, law enforcement officers have to obtain a warrant supported by probable cause.349 That reduces the possibility that the officers will be able to bypass the protections of the Fourth Amendment by utilizing the Aharvesting@ scenarios outlined earlier350 and ensures that we maintain the proper bal-

3 4 6 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 3 4 7 S e e , e . g . , U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M i l l e r , 4 2 5 U . S . 4 3 5 , 4 3 7 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . 3 4 8 S e e P E R S O N A L P R I V A C Y I N A N I N F O R M A T I O N S O C I E T Y : T H E R E P O R T O F T H E

P R I V A C Y P R O T E C T I O N S T U D Y C O M M I S S I O N , C H A P T E R 9 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , h t t p : / / a s p e . h h s . g o v / d a t a c n c l / 1 9 7 7 p r i v a c y / c 9 . h t m :

T h e b a l a n c e t o b e s t r u c k i s a n o l d o n e ; i t r e f l e c t s t h e t e n s i o n b e t w e e n i n d i -v i d u a l l i b e r t y a n d s o c i a l o r d e r . T h e s o v e r e i g n n e e d s i n f o r m a t i o n t o m a i n t a i n o r d e r ; t h e i n d i v i d u a l n e e d s t o b e a b l e t o p r o t e c t h i s i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d a u t o n -o m y s h o u l d t h e s o v e r e i g n o v e r r e a c h . T h e p e c u l i a r l y A m e r i c a n n o t i o n s o f l e g a l l y l i m i t e d g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e p r o t e c t i o n s i n t h e B i l l o f R i g h t s p r o v i d e b r o a d . . . s t a n d a r d s f o r r e a c h i n g a w o r k a b l e b a l a n c e . B u t t h e w o r l d h a s a w a y o f d i s r u p t i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r b a l a n c e s t r u c k i n p a s t g e n e r a t i o n s ; t h e t h e o r y m a y r e m a i n u n a l t e r e d b u t c i r c u m s t a n c e s c h a n g e , r e q u i r i n g a r e w o r k i n g o f t h e m e c h a n i s m s w h i c h m a i n t a i n e d t h e b a l a n c e i n t h e p a s t .

I d . 3 4 9 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . . 3 5 0 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . A .


ance between privacy and law enforcement.351 If we incorpo-rate this conception of shared privacy into our Fourth Amend-ment doctrine, we will then have to address a secondary issue: Do we limit shared privacy to information generated by rela-tionships directed at our homes, or do we expand it out to en-compass any relationship with a Aservant@ entity? Do we, in other words, recognize shared privacy in the information in-dividuals engaging in commercial, professional and service endeavors share with their Aservant@ entities, as well? If we do that do we also extend the concept to encompass the relation-ship commercial, educational and other entities share with their Aservant@ entities? Or do we limit shared privacy to infor-mation that can, in effect, be used to gain access to the activi-ties within our homes? Those are difficult questions, the resolution of which is quite beyond the scope of this essay. Essentially, they raise two di-chotomies: individual and entity; home and not-home. Ex-tending Fourth Amendment principles to encompass informa-tion an individual shares with a Aservant@ entity that provides support services for the individual's home is the easiest scenario because it is the closest to the spatially-based conception of pri-vacy upon which the Fourth Amendment is predicated.352 Extending Fourth Amendment shared privacy to encompass the information an individual shares with a Aservant@ entity that provides support services to the individual's place of business seems to be more of a stretch, simply because we think of places of business as inherently Apublic.@ But the Supreme Court has extended traditional Fourth Amendment spatial privacy to places of business;353 officers therefore must get a search war-

3 5 1 I t h a s t h e a d d e d a d v a n t a g e o f e l i m i n a t i n g t h e c u r r e n t , i n c r e a s i n g l y u n w o r k a b l e , d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n c o n t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a n d Ao t h e r @ i n f o r m a t i o n . S e e , e . g . , S u s a n F r e i w a l d , U n c e r t a i n P r i v a c y : C o m m u n i c a t i o n A t t r i b u t e s A f t e r T h e D i g i t a l T e l e p h o n y A c t , 6 9 S . C A L . L . R E V . 9 4 9 , 9 5 4 - 5 8 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . 3 5 2 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 5 3 S e e M a r s h a l l v . B a r l o w ' s , I n c . , 4 3 6 U . S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 1 - 1 2 ( 1 9 7 8 ) :

T h e . . . F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t p r o t e c t s c o m m e r c i a l b u i l d i n g s a s w e l l a s p r i v a t e



rant to seek evidence they believe is located in commercial or professional offices.354 We could, therefore, Areasonably@ extend shared privacy to individually-owned places of business; our primary concern, after all, is with protecting the privacy of individuals,355 and information-sharing in this context involves a relationship initiated by an individual. Such an extension of shared privacy would also recognize the extent to which we conduct Apersonal@ matters that were once limited to our homes, from our offices.356 The entity/not-home option is more problematic. The Supreme Court has held that Acorporations can claim no equality with in-dividuals in the enjoyment of a right to privacy.@357 Since privacy is a personal construct, it seems we cannot justify extending shared privacy to artificial entities, unless we were to decide such a step is necessary to protect the privacy of indi-viduals associated with the artificial entity. Of course, if we felt that such a step was necessary, the more logical approach

h o m e s . T o h o l d o t h e r w i s e w o u l d b e l i e t h e o r i g i n o f t h a t A m e n d m e n t , a n d t h e A m e r i c a n c o l o n i a l e x p e r i e n c e . . . . T h e g e n e r a l w a r r a n t w a s a r e c u r r i n g p o i n t o f c o n t e n t i o n i n t h e C o l o n i e s i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e R e v o l u t i o n . T h e p a r t i c u l a r o f f e n s i v e n e s s i t e n g e n d e r e d w a s a c u t e l y f e l t b y t h e m e r c h a n t s a n d b u s i n e s s m e n w h o s e p r e m i s e s a n d p r o d u c t s w e r e i n s p e c t e d f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s e v e r a l p a r l i a m e n t a r y r e v e n u e m e a s u r e s t h a t m o s t i r r i t a t e d t h e c o l o n i s t s . ` [ T h e ] F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t ' s c o m m a n d s g r e w i n l a r g e m e a s u r e o u t o f t h e c o l o n i s t s ' e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e w r i t s o f a s s i s t a n c e . . . [ t h a t ] g r a n t e d s w e e p i n g p o w e r t o c u s t o m s o f f i c i a l s a n d o t h e r a g e n t s o f t h e K i n g t o s e a r c h a t l a r g e f o r s m u g g l e d g o o d s . ' A g a i n s t t h i s b a c k g r o u n d , i t i s u n t e n a b l e t h a t t h e b a n o n w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e s w a s n o t i n t e n d e d t o s h i e l d p l a c e s o f b u s i n e s s a s w e l l a s o f r e s i d e n c e .

I d . ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C h a d w i c k , 4 3 3 U . S . 1 , 7 - 8 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ) . 3 5 4 S e e C a m a r a v . M u n i c i p a l C o u r t , 3 8 7 U . S . 5 2 3 , 5 2 8 - 5 2 9 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ; S e e v . C i t y o f S e a t t l e , 3 8 7 U . S . 5 4 1 , 5 4 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . 3 5 5 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . ( p r i v a c y o f Am e r c h a n t s a n d b u s i n e s s m e n @) . 3 5 6 I t w o u l d a l s o e l i m i n a t e c o n c e p t u a l d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t w o u l d a r i s e w h e n s o m e o n e ' s h o m e a n d o f f i c e w e r e p h y s i c a l l y l o c a t e d o n t h e s a m e p r e m i s e s . 3 5 7 U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M o r t o n S a l t C o . , 3 3 8 U . S . 6 3 2 , 6 5 2 ( 1 9 5 0 ) .


would be to focus on the individuals, not the artificial entity; that is, we could decide to extend the concept of shared privacy to encompass an individual's relationship with an artificial entity that was not engaged in providing support services to the individual's home or office. This would protect the individual's information-sharing with the artificial entity without requiring us to extrapolate an individually-based notion of shared privacy (e.g., individual-individual and individual-Aservant@ entity) to a collective entity.

IV. CONCLUSION Ubiquitous technology presents us with the challenge of deciding how we want to apply the Fourth Amendment in a world that is very different from the world from which it sprang.358 Informational privacy359 was almost nonexistent in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; in that world there were no computers, no copying machines, no credit card trans-actions, no telephones or other services provided by externalities, no insurance companies, no educational or em-ployment records, none of the kinds of data we routinely gener-ate in the course of our lives. Citizens of that era engaged in transactions with vendors, but the transactions were in cash and generated few, if any, written records;360 while a vendor may have recalled some details of my transactions, those details were not documented and preserved in some more or less permanent form. And whatever information resulted from these transactions was in limited form; I traveled to the vendors and dealt with them externally in a Apublic@ place. They were not privy to the details of life in my home; those details were available only to the inti-

3 5 8 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 5 9 S e e s u p r a n o t e E r r o r ! B o o k m a r k n o t d e f i n e d . a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t . 3 6 0 C r e d i t e x i s t e d i n t h e s e v e n t e e n t h a n d e i g h t e e n c e n t u r i e s , b u t i t w a s l i m i t e d t o t h e m e r c a n t i l e a n d p r i v i l e g e d c l a s s e s . S e e , e . g . , M A U R E E N W A L L E R , 1 7 0 0 : S C E N E S F R O M L O N D O N L I F E 7 , 2 0 4 , 2 4 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ) .



matesCfamily, guests, servantsCwith whom I shared the phys-ical privacy of my home. The only records that were likely to exist as to me and my activities were in my possession: Apapers@ I created myself and letters from others. Since copying machines, carbon paper and other implements of replication did not exist, a Apaper@ was usually an original,361 which made it relatively easy to control access to the information it contained; it could be held by only one person at a time. I could therefore physically secure my Apapers@ inside my home, in a chest or a cabinet, or a desk; once the common law antecedents of the Fourth Amendment appeared, it was clear that law enforce-ment could not enter my home to violate my privacy and in-spect my Apapers@ without securing a warrant.362 This was suf-ficient to protect my spatial and informational privacy from arbitrary governmental action; aside from physical entry into my premises, there was no other way law enforcement could access my personal information (other than the generalized, reputational information I disseminated by acting in Apublic@ places). This approach is no longer sufficient. The physical and informational barriers we once used to differentiate between our Aprivate@ and Apublic@ selves are being eroded by technolo-gy, and the erosion is accelerating. If we persist in utilizing a zero-sum, spatial conception of privacy to implement the Fourth Amendment, we will render it ineffective as a guarantor of privacy in the face of arbitrary government action.363 If we continue along this path, the Fourth Amendment will become, in effect, an artifactCa device that protects against a limited class of real-world intrusions (which will become increasingly unnecessary given the other alternatives).364

3 6 1 S e e , e . g . , W A L T E R M . B E S A N T , L O N D O N I N T H E T I M E O F T H E S T U A R T S 5 3 ( 1 9 0 3 ) ( d e s c r i b i n g s e i z u r e o f t h e Ap a p e r s @ o f J a m e s H o w e l l , w h o w a s a s u s p e c t e d s p y ) . 3 6 2 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I . A . 3 6 3 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . A . 3 6 4 S e e s u p r a S e c t i o n I I I . A .

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN AN ERA OF UBIQUITOUS …

Documents

Transcript of THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN AN ERA OF UBIQUITOUS …