User:Class20/sandbox

Privacy and The United States Congress Sources

Completed 20 ASA Bibliography

David Bedingfield. 1992. "Privacy or Publicity? The Enduring Confusion Surrounding the American Tort of Invasion of Privacy." The Modern Law Review no. 1: 111. Retrieved March 9, 2018. (http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/stable/1096849?&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) Keywords: Litigation, Tort law, Right to privacy, United States Constitutional Law This article addresses the several separate rights included in the right to privacy, and provides a combination of court cases such as that of Kelley v Post Publishing Co., in addition to United States constitutional law utilized in these court cases to help differentiate between these separate rights under the umbrella of privacy. For example both the right of publicity and the right against slander had origins relating to privacy. The author even goes on to disagree with Brandeis and Warren’s definition of privacy, saying that it is more a good read then actual law. It also provides various examples of court cases that conflict with the First and Fourteenth Amendment and how in the past the freedom of the press would often win against the plaintiff, making the right to privacy primarily obsolete. The author then continues to associate the right to privacy as not the right to be let alone, but the law of copyright and trade mark. This would be useful, because it can be used as a criticism against commonly held beliefs regarding the origins of privacy and the critically acclaimed journal “Right to Privacy”. The only negative about the article is it definitely shows a little bias, in terms of the amount of space that was provided towards framing that the commonly held views towards the origins of privacy are wrong, it also primarily provides examples in which the plaintiffs right to privacy was infringed upon, but the court ruled against them, therefore most of the court cases would not be used in the main part of my text. However it will be useful to me, because it provides the first instance that privacy was introduced in the U.S. courts, as it actually wasn’t within the Supreme Court but a Georgia Supreme Court, and the U.S. government later overruled its decision.

Davies, Kathleen J. 2017. "Write to Privacy: Literature, Letters, Law, and the Inviolate Personality in America's Long Nineteenth Century." Dissertation Abstracts International 78(4). Retrieved March 9, 2018. (https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.berkeley.edu/docview/1846963364) Keywords: Amendments, Privacy, Courts This dissertation looks at the origins of the constitutional right to privacy, providing both a chronology of constitutional privacy law and justification to why these measures were on the literature forefront at the time. This genealogy begins at the end of the eighteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth, and is useful to my Wikipedia page, because it helps provide historical context for the emergence of societal changes on the concept of privacy. Within the article, the author identifies that privacy is never explicitly stated in the United States Constitution, and even identifies the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas as one of the instances in which privacy was used to allow for homosexual behavior. The author then explains all of the Amendments that have been used in the past to prove court case rulings for the right of privacy. It also recognizes as the castle doctrine as one of the first clear legal provisions for privacy. The information is reliable, because it relies entirely on influential literary works and policies at the time, and while it felt dense provides a good introduction to the prose utilized within Congressional bills and where it stemmed from.

Ellis, Cali M., and Michael C. McDaniel. 2013. "Texas takes on the TSA: The Constitutional Fight over Airport Security." Journal Of Homeland Security & Emergency Management 10, no. 1: 1. Retrieved March 9, 2018. (http://p8888-ucelinks.cdlib.org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/sfx_local?ID=doi:10.1515%2Fjhsem-2012-0068&genre=article&atitle=Texas%20takes%20on%20the%20TSA%3A%20The%20Constitutional%20Fight%20over%20Airport%20Security.&title=Journal%20of%20Homeland%20Security%20&%20Emergency%20Management&issn=15477355&isbn=&volume=10&issue=1&date=20130401&aulast=Ellis,%20Cali%20M.&spage=1&pages=1-21&sid=EBSCO:Complementary%20Index:90364994) Keywords: civil liberties; tenth amendment; transportation security administration; United States. This article discusses how after 9/11, air transportation has been one of the most important and closely watched areas of homeland security, as a result a Congress took a number of steps to secure each passenger aircraft including hardening cockpit doors and deploying Federal Air Marshals on flights, they even nationalized the system for securing access to airports by creating the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). However in recent times some of the measures employed by TSA officers are starting to conflict with local opinion of privacy. In Texas for example, the Texas legislature wished to introduce measures that outlawed “Body imaging scanning equipment”, and searches without probable cause. However the US government argued that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution made clear that air transport security was an exclusively federal domain, and that the states had no right to limit the powers of the federal government in this area. Use of scanners continues to be an infringement of privacy for some, as a suit was filed in July 2010 by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to prevent the deployment of AIT scanners. They claimed that the scanners violate “the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment”. The author argues that citizens are also driven by fear, when considering homeland security policies, and are therefore more likely to let up their right to privacy in these instances. While the review over TSA security measures are mixed, according to a CRS (Congressional Research Survey), most people supported the measures. I think that this article is useful to my article, because not only is it well written, and from a reliable source, it would fit well in the criticisms section, and in the legislation section of the Wikipedia page.

Geller, Tom. 2016. "In Privacy Law, It’s the U.S. vs. the World." Communications Of The ACM 59(2): 21-23. Retrieved March 9, 2018. (http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.berkeley.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid=590e7e75-6393-4e3b-a853-4dfa05220be0@sessionmgr4007) Keywords: Privacy tort, Internet privacy This article can be used near the conclusion of my article to provide a global perspective on privacy laws, held by varying countries. The article discusses the differences between the U.S. and other countries, focusing primarily on Europe, and analyzing variations in Internet privacy issues. It even includes actions/ suits by foreign countries on American companies such as Facebook that have become global companies that struggle with international policy. The source itself seems reliable, because it provided real world examples and utilized legislative jargon.

Gillaspie, Adam. 2017. "Extraterritorial Application of the Stored Communications Act: Why Microsoft Corp. v. United States Signals That Technology Has Surpassed the Law." Kansas Law Review 66, no. 2: 459-483. (https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/25703/11_Gillaspie_Final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) Keywords: Microsoft v. United States, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Stored Communications Act, technology, Fourth Amendment, Supreme Court, tort privacy This article talked about how t advances in electronic communication has resulted in little control and regulation on important communication such as emails, text messages, and phone conversations. For example, once an email or text message is sent, or a phone call made, the relevant service provider obtains certain data about that communication. While initially most of the practices where for practicality of business and was aprt fo the service, such as storing the information in a pre-determined location stated by the customer, to avoid costs service providers have begun to move the data to servers located in foreign countries. This process potentially brings the data out of the reach of lawful criminal investigation by U.S. courts. The article focused mostly on Microsoft v. United States as its primary example of a court case, in recent times that blatantly displays the ambiguity found in Section 2703 of the SCA. The author even references how within the last fifty years Congress has only recently brought electronic transmissions within the confines of Fourth Amendment protection, and di so through the enactment of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act. In addition to this case, the author briefly mentions other cases such as Riley v. California. The article itself is very well organize, even providing an background section that looks at the five dominant types of privacy: “1) tort privacy, 2) Fourth Amendment privacy, 3) First Amendment privacy, 4) fundamental-decision privacy, and 5) State constitutional privacy”. This article however is relevant to my Wikipedia article for multiple reasons, firstly because it talks about the importance of the fourth amendment (which would be included in the amendments section), provides an additional court case to include in the Court cases subsection) and provides summaries on specific legislation that would fall under the legislation aspect of my article (specifically the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Stored, Communications Act, Microsoft v. United States case, Overview of the Stored Communications Act, and Application of the SCA sections within the article.).

Gross, Hyman. 1967. " The Concept of Privacy.” New York University Law Review 34: 1893. Keywords: privacy, Amendments, legislation This article focuses on the Amendments that help protect an individuals right to privacy within the constitution. It focuses primarily on the first amendment but also mentions briefly the fifth, and ninth, in addition to the third. This is helpful for my Wikipeda article, because it allows me to use one source for multiples amendments within the amendments section of the article. The article itself was fairly unbiased and had all of the most relevant information within one paragraph in which it quickly explained how each amendment protects individual privacy rights. For example it stated that “privacy with regard to one's associations has been recognized as a right protected by the first amendment because required disclosure would act as a restraint on the free exercise of the protected activity." It additionally stated that the fifth amendment's protection against involuntary self-incrimination, and gives privacy a place in the scheme of constitutional protection.

Helscher, David. 1994. "Griswold v Connecticut and the Unenumerated Right of Privacy." Northern Illinois University Law Review 15: 33. Keywords: privacy, Griswold v Connecticut, law/ legislation, judicial interpretation This article focuses on the Griswold v Connecticut, and how it relates to the definition of a constitutional right to privacy. The article provided a background by stating how the case all started when Estelle Griswold, Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a medical professor at Yale Medical School were arrested for aiding in the dissemination of contraceptive devices in violation of Connecticut statutes. This case was a large victory for privacy rights, because it held the Connecticut statute unconstitutional as it violated a constitutional right of privacy, and cited the penumbras of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments as this constitutional right. This article will be useful for my article because it would provide the information in the court case section of my article, by relating the court case to privacy rights rather then just feminism and allowing me to connect it to the congress legislation portion. The article itself was slightly biased in favor for the expansion of privacy rights, but I feel like that is fitting in this context and follows the majority opinion of the court case.

Hostetler, David R., and Seiko F. Okada. 2013. "Children's privacy in virtual K-12 education: virtual solutions of the amended Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) rule." North Carolina Journal Of Law & Technology, Online Ed 167. (http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Hostetler-Okada_Final.pdf) Keywords: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, FTC, education, privacy law, virtual education, This article focuses on the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), which was enacted in 1998, and the additional measures implement by the FTC in 1999. It specifically talks about modifications to the act will strengthen the regulation over website operators and application developers to collect personal information from children under the age of thirteen with verifiable parental consent. However, because these are programs that are used for school, the author argues that the rise of virtual education has resulted in oversight over the role of administrators, teachers, and the school in protecting student privacy. Considering the adoption of loco parentis within the court system, the author hopes that in the future more modifications will clarify educators’ roles and responsibilities as parental surrogates in protecting children’s privacy in virtual education. Overall I believe that this article is a reliable source, though slightly biased towards implementation of a stricter regulatory control on children’s privacy, the authors of the article continue to cite outside sources within their analysis. They also developed an organized structure, by outlining their argument, providing background information on the rise of technology and how that affects children, and then talking about the origins of COPPA, and what we should do in the future as the use of new technologies increases unregulated by the government. This source is useful for my article, because it provides information on COPPA, and even includes updated modifications made to the original act, allowing the information I provide in the article to be as updated as possible. It also continues to talk about COPPA within the scope of FTC regulation, which has formed its own subsection on the page as well.

Hutchinson, Eugene E. 2015. "KEEPING YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION PERSONAL: TROUBLE FOR THE MODERN CONSUMER." Hofstra Law Review 43, no. 4: 1149. Retrieved March 9, 2018. (http://p8888-ucelinks.cdlib.org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/sfx_local?genre=article&atitle=KEEPING%20YOUR%20PERSONAL%20INFORMATION%20PERSONAL%3A%20TROUBLE%20FOR%20THE%20MODERN%20CONSUMER.&title=Hofstra%20Law%20Review&issn=00914029&isbn=&volume=43&issue=4&date=20150601&aulast=Hutchinson,%20Eugene%20E.&spage=1149&pages=1149-1187&sid=EBSCO:Complementary%20Index:110011263). Keywords: information, privacy, personal data, consumers , Google, policy, brokers, online, company , ID, websites This article addresses how the growing online market has resulted in companies collecting, storing, and using consumers' personal information and eroding privacy in the process. The article is organized into three major parts: Part I gives an brief history of the data market, including the data collection and storage practices of companies and data brokers, and the current legislation protecting consumer privacy online, part II describes how unregulated data market invades consumer privacy without redressability, outlines the unauthorized collection and dissemination of personal identification information, the ineffectiveness of the current legislation and regulation tactics to protect consumers from that harm, and consumers' inability to bring successful actions to defend their privacy in court, and part III proposes implementing legislation aiming to protect consumers' personal identification information by use of opt-in consent, establishing a registry of data brokers, and creating a private right of action, so that consumers can successfully bring lawsuits when companies violate their privacy rights and hold those companies accountable. When companies gather personal information and disseminate it to third parties, it is often to data brokers-companies that gather, analyze, store, and sell personal online information-which has, in turn, given rise to the data market. This can lead to unauthorized collection and sharing of personal data causing both economic and personal harm to consumers. Unfortunately due to the strong requirements regarding proof of violation, consumers who can even bring class actions against approved companies for the unauthorized collection, rarely survives a motion to dismiss. In conclusion the author provides several improvements to ensure the safety of consumers private information, including adopting a mandatory opt-in approach to consumer consent, putting a monetary value on that consumer privacy data until legislation can be made to provide a clear statute giving consumers a private right of action for invasion of privacy, and increasing consumer privacy protection to increase consumer trust in businesses. This source is useful because not only does it suggest improvements that can increase consumer privacy protection but provides specific examples of legislation that impacted citizen information privacy. Some of the ones mentioned in the article that I would want to include in my Wikipedia article include are the references embedded within the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (requires financial institutions to provide each consumer with a privacy notice explaining what information they collect from the consumer), President Obama’s Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights of 2012, and FTC Act (authorizes the FTC to levy penalties on approved companies found violating their own written policies and deceiving consumers). It also mention the Fair Information Practice Principles ("FIPP") a reoccurring theme throughout my research that helps explain the measures through which to judge privacy violation, something I hope to include in my introduction.

Kerr, Orin S. 2017. "THE EFFECT OF LEGISLATION ON FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION." Michigan Law Review 115 (7): 1117. Retrieved March 2, 2018. Keywords: Fourth Amendment, Legislation, This article looks at specifically the way court decisions affect the constitutional right to privacy argued under the Fourth Amendment. It provides three ways in which the Court is split regarding their role of legislative oversight, through broad interpretation of legislative prose. The author argues that interpreting the Fourth Amendment independently of legislation avoids problems of stringent infringement. This source was useful to my Wikipedia article because it provided greater incite into the linked relationship between Congress and the Courts and could provide for an in depth analysis of legislation, as it can later be deemed unconstitutional by the courts, or be modified through interpretation. While this source went in depth, it was very biased in favor of broad interpretation of legislation from Congress, which would make it unlikely to be used effectively in my article without forcing bias into my article.

Landesberg, Levin, Curtin and Lev Ori. 1998. “PRIVACY ONLINE: A REPORT TO CONGRESS” Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved March 9, 2018. (https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/privacy-online-report-congress/priv-23a.pdf) Keywords: information, Online privacy, children, Consumer Privacy, Fair Information Practice, Survey, Disclosures, Children This report to congress provides an assessment of the effectiveness of self-regulation as a means of protecting consumer privacy on the internet, focusing particularly on children’s privacy, and consumer privacy. This report can be split into 6 parts: Part I provides an examination of current industry guidelines governing information practices online, part II provides a brief history of their prior work in online privacy and provides a summary of the privacy concerns raised by the new online marketplace, part III the core principles of privacy-protective information practices, part IV compares current industry guidelines to accepted principles, part V presents the findings of a survey of Web sites conducted by the FTC, and part VI is a quick conclusion. According to the report, the online consumer market is growing exponentially, but privacy concerns have become increasingly apparent by studying children’s online privacy and consumer online privacy. Currently, one serious safety concern is presented by the posting of personal identifying information by and about children in interactive public areas. The report then continues to analyze how they should analyze the effectiveness of regulation by utilizing the fair information practice principles. These principles include notice/awareness, choice/consent, access/participation, integrity/security, and lastly enforcement/redress. Since the FTC specializes in enforcement/redress, they looked at three important factors that control how privacy violations should be addressed through which self-regulation, private remedies, and government enforcement. It utilizes this framework on the industry specific examples, to display a more precise way to view their framework. The last major section looks a survey of commercial sites on the World Wide Web conducted by the FTC in July 1997. The purpose of this survey was to determine whether self-regulation is an effective means of protecting consumer privacy on the Web. Their results showed that almost all of the sites in the samples — between 87% and 97% — collect at least one type of personal information from online consumers. This personal identifying information includes items such as name, e-mail or postal address, credit card number or Social Security number, in addition to other identifiers such as race. In conclusion, the FTC concludes that the federal government has limited authority over the collection and dissemination of personal data collected online. Even the Federal Trade Commission Act, prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in and affecting commerce, preventing the FTC from addressing all of the violations provided to them. This source was useful, because another large part if the privacy in Congress is not just the creation of regulation, but also the enforcement of these privacy laws. The FTC a Congress-created agency is very important in determining privacy infringements, and should be included within the Wikipedia page. I would recommend this article to others, because while it is a little old it provides insight into how privacy violations are monitored and recognized by the federal government. I would use this to create a monitoring y the FTC section within the Privacy and U.S. Congress article, and providing insight into the laws that they often site when issuing violations, and what constitutes a violation/infringement on another’s privacy.

Lopez, Alberto B. 2016. "POSTHUMOUS PRIVACY, DECEDENT INTENT, AND POST-MORTEM ACCESS TO DIGITAL ASSETS." George Mason Law Review 24(1): 183-242.(http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/Lopez_ReadyforJCI.pdf) Keywords: Information privacy, This report looks at how the digital revolution has triggered a cascade of legal consequences, both in and out of the courtroom. As the world has become increasingly digitized, executors have encountered difficulty when seeking access to a decedent’s digital assets that are stored in password-protected online accounts. And because there is no legislation in place for this procedure, the courts help determine what property can be provided post-mortem, or with digital signature, or digital proof of the right to access property or information. The example provided in the text is that of Marsha Mehran and Mr. Mehran. After the death of his daughter Marsha, her father, Mr.Mehran, wished to access her Google account and gain access to some of the work she was writing before her death. Google didn’t respond to any of his emails requesting access, so he went to court and later gained access to a CD of her remaining work. This happened because most online service providers are reluctant to permit access to and the subsequent transfer of digital information for fear of violating the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), which is a portion of the larger Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The article then continues to talk about what the this act is by quoting that the SCA states “a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service.” The article itself is well organized and reliable, and it even includes a section dedicated to state statutes, proving that it doesn’t just provide service level information on the topic, but is an in-depth look at the post-mortem privacy rights, even including the ULC, a nonprofit privacy rights organization within its examples. This article is relevant to my Wikipedia article, because it talks specifically about legislation I can include in my legislation section. Similarly, in its intro it references Metro Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., which may be useful for my article, because I can include it in the Courts section.

Marc, Rotenberg, and Brody David. 2013. "Protecting Privacy: The Role of the Courts and Congress." Human Rights no. 3: 7. Retrieved March 2, 2018 Keywords: Court, Congress privacy, By looking at how The Court and Congress are confronting privacy issues in the last few years, this source looks at how the right to privacy is a work in progress. By looking at the rapid innovation present at this time the author suggests, “case law created in the era of the trap and trace device, copper wire, and alligator clips no longer protects individuals from the expansive scope of new surveillance techniques”. The article is organized into subsections looking at new surveillance technology, cell hone tracking, aerial surveillance/drones, facial recognition/biometrics, body scanners, and other influential technologies of the future that may infringe upon this invaluable right. She argues that Congress and the Courts should focus on activity instead of technology. This source is useful for my article, because it also provides a linkage between the congress and Courts when she states that “It was the Court's decision in 1967 that set the course for the modern right to privacy, but it was the congressional legislation the following year that gave meaning to that right”. The source itself is reliable, and will provide good information to include within the technological information privacy aspect of my article. It also helps pose the question as to whether Congress or the Court decisions come first when making strides in the arena of privacy for the people.

Palmer, Vernon Valentine. 2011. "Three Milestones in the History of Privacy in the United States." Tulane European & Civil Law Forum 26(1): 67-97. Retrieved March 2, 2018. Keywords: Privacy, Rights, Tort, Court Cases, Prosser’s Methodology, personality right, Constitutional Law This articles studies the history of privacy rights in the United States, by examining three major milestones in its 120-year journey. The author focuses primarily on personality/informational privacy rights, which, today, is the gateway to protections against unauthorized use of an individual’s name, likeness, publicity rights, confidences, compositions, and life history, in addition to autonomous decision-making relating to marriage, abortion, childbearing and childrearing. The first milestone was the introduction of the subject by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis in their famous article “The Right of Privacy.” Borrowing the memorable phrase of Judge Cooley that it was the right “to be let alone”, Warren and Brandeis conceived the need for such a right and through a combination of prestige and persuasion. The historical context of the rise of the daily newspaper and increased accessibility to photography led to the eventual creation of the article that drastically affected the trajectory of American common law to be more far-reaching than other law jurisdictions. This recognition led to a seventy-year period of incubation and growth followed by the second milestone of the reformulation of the privacy right by William Prosser. Prosser restructured all invasions of privacy into four separate torts: Intrusion upon the plaintiff’s seclusion or solitude, public disclosure of embarrassing private facts, publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light, and appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness for advantage. The third milestone, which began in the 1960s was the application of constitutional limits on the common law torts, as the recognition of new constitutionally based privacy rights with origins independent of the common law were introduced to societal practice/acceptance. In conclusion, the author addresses that privacy encompasses a set of fundamental rights with little or nothing in common with the privacy protected by tort law. Privacy concerns personality rights arising from the constitution, not a series of torts limited by the constitution. These rights protect against governmental rather than private invasion and require balancing of one constitutional right against another. This source is useful, because it comes from a reputable source, and like the other sources provides a historical context for the emergence of privacy law on the U.S. political/congressional stage. I am going to use this article for the lead section, which will at least briefly mention Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, as well as Prosser, and then for the section that talks about Congress and the Courts in privacy law.

Pearlstein, Deborah. 2017. "Before Privacy, Power: The Structural Constitution and the Challenge of Mass Surveillance." Journal Of National Security Law & Policy 2: 159. Retrieved March 2, 2018. Keywords: surveillance, privacy, executive power, Article II, government This article focuses on how the current claims of privacy and expressive rights have clashed with individual rights and the newly developed government capacity and desire to collect zettabytes of data. The article focused particularly on U.S. government surveillance authorized by congress under the executive power of Article II of the Constitution. It also focuses on how the Constitution’s structural provisions have also been the source of a method of constitutional interpretation (structural reasoning). This article would be useful for my article because it provides some of the first information I have collected on privacy within the executive branch. The source itself was slightly biased, as it questions the abuse of power surrounding bulk collection.However, I believe it would be good to use in two sections in my article, but most useful within the executive section.

Sievert, Ronald. 2016. "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 compared with the law of electronic surveillance in Europe." American Journal Of Criminal Law no. 2: 125. Keywords: electronic surveillance, privacy, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 This article compares the operative provisions of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) with the equivalent directives of European surveillance law in five representative countries. This would be useful for my Wikipedia article, because it provides a global perspective through which to view constitutional law that focuses on privacy. The author does not focus on noncitizens, making the source material slightly biased, however because foreign residents outside the country are not protected by the Fourth Amendment it seems irrelevant to its use in the article. The article also talks about Metadata, and how the provisions of the USA Freedom Act will increase the burden on the government by directing that this data be stored with the separate telecommunications providers instead of NSA. This source would be included within the sources of the Wikipedia article, because it focuses on two pieces of legislation present in the Legislation section of the article.

Tokson, Matthew. 2016. "KNOWLEDGE AND FOURTH AMENDMENT PRIVACY." Northwestern University Law Review 111(1): 139-204. Retrieved March 2, 2018. Keywords: Fourth Amendment, Courts, Privacy, information, societal knowledge, law, surveillance, This Article addresses the issue of “reasonable expectations of privacy” versus awareness of personal privacy practiced and examines the central role that knowledge plays in setting the boundaries of Fourth Amendment on the definition of privacy in the United States. Courts currently look to what a person should know about privacy-relevant information, rather than what she/he actually knows. This encourages courts to reach a conclusion about the collective knowledge possessed by society, or “societal knowledge,” instead of attributing that knowledge to the individual citizen and working on a case-by-case basis. This article hopes to use analysis of prior interpretation of the fourth amendment in courts and analysis of viable alternatives to develop a Fourth Amendment regime that can effectively protect privacy in novel technological and social contexts, This article was organized into five parts: Part I discusses the general history and nature of the Katz test, established in the court case Katz v. United States, that currently governs Fourth Amendment scope, part II explores how courts rely on assessments of societal knowledge to decide a wide variety of Fourth Amendment questions, part III examines the conceptual and practical difficulties of measuring societal knowledge, part IV discusses the instability of a knowledge-based Fourth Amendment regime and the potential for erosion over time as public knowledge of surveillance grows, and part V offers alternative approaches for determining the Fourth Amendment’s scope and explores the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. By referencing specific Court cases and reporting the results of an original survey of cell phone users that measured users’ knowledge of cell phone surveillance techniques, this article was able to compare the results of user knowledge to those interpreted as societal knowledge by the court. This source was useful, because it once again addressed the overlap of Congress and the Courts to an individual’s right to privacy. The source was slightly biased by adopting a viewpoint that suggests that the current privacy system is inadequate, but all scholarly discourse display this trend, so it is common and negligible when analyzing the competence of the article as a reliable source. I would use this article in my Wikipedia article in the section that explains Congressional law through Court decisions. It would also help answer the question whether congressional law or interpretation of specific issues through court decisions contributes to protection of consumer privacy.

Tribe, Laurence H. 2004. "The Domesticated Liberty of Lawrence v. Texas.” Columbia Law Review 104: 1893. Keywords: privacy, Lawrence v. Texas, law/ legislation, judicial interpretation This article focuses on the Lawrence v. Texas, and how it relates to the definition of a constitutional right to privacy. The article also provided prior court cases through which the court decision was eventually reached. It also explained how it also was a large victory for LGBTQ+ communities. Justice Kennedy explained that liberty should “respect [gay men's] private lives," over "'the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”. Therefore the case was hinged upon liberty and privacy, and relied on other court cases that defined privacy to eventually reach the decision. This article will be useful for my article because it would provide the information in the court case section of my article, by relating the court case to privacy rights rather then just social issues. It also allows me to connect the case to future legislation passed by Congress. The article itself was slightly biased in favor for the expansion of privacy rights, but I feel like that is fitting in this context and follows the majority opinion of the court case.

Wheatley, Alec. 2015. "Do-it-yourself privacy: the need for comprehensive federal privacy legislation with a private right of action." Golden Gate University Law Review 3: 265. Retrieved March 2, 2018. Keywords: privacy, federal, informational privacy, consumer privacy, law/ legislation, judicial interpretation This article looks at how the rise of Big Data drives companies to collect and store consumer data, alering the protections necessary to protect consumer privacy. Therefore this article focuses on informational privacy, c the collection and use of personally identifiable information (PII), focusing particularly on consumer-business privacy rights. This article is organized into 4 parts, part I describes how the concept of privacy has evolved over time, from its original constitutional conception to our modern informational conception, part II discusses the current state of federal privacy law and its shortcomings for a plaintiff attempting to bring a claim in federal court, part III describes the role of the FTC as the primary enforcer of privacy rights, and part IV outlines the features a new comprehensive federal online privacy law should contain. The article credits Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis and their famous article, The Right to Privacy, as the catalyst to privacy rights being introduced to the social conscious. It also mentioned William Prosser’s invasion of privacy torts (intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, and appropriation of likeness), as the basis for legislation. It stated that the Privacy Act of 1974 represented the first attempt by Congress to address privacy concerns. However, the advent of the Internet changed the way we conceive of privacy, resulting in the passing of the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. However it talked about how strict interpretation of these laws restrict the situations in which a privacy plaintiff may bring a claim absent a showing of an imminent violation. Even including cases such as Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, as examples of this phenomenon. It lastly addressed the current system of regulation, as the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has become the de facto privacy regulator for the federal government. According to the article, despite the fact that there is an enormous amount of consumer data being collected, there is no comprehensive federal law establishing the proper standards for how that data is to be securely stored and transferred. It suggests accountability as one of the key features of any new federal privacy legislation. This article was useful, because not only did it give a brief chronological history of privacy and its introduction to the political sphere, but it also provided information on influential legislation, and the way the FTC regulates non-compliance with these laws. The source itself is slightly biased towards broader interpretation of regulation, and introduction of more updated legislation, however this poses no threat to its credibility for use on Wikipedia. This article would be used on my Wikipedia page, not only for the lead section which would include a timeline of privacy in literature, including its introduction in the “The right to Privacy”, and the Fourth Amendment, to its official recognition in the Privacy Act of 1974. This is also extra useful to my article, because it points out specific legislation that Congress introduced and how it relates to the court in terms of its implementation and regulation by the FTC.

Updated Outline

Privacy and the United States Congress Lead/Outline

Lead Privacy in the United States Congress, consists of enacted legislation, funding of regulatory agencies, and creation of congressional committees in responses to major court cases and technological change. These congressional actions help clarify what constitutes privacy tort and how to better serve/protect peoples “right to privacy” through these actions. There are constant attempts to improve privacy practice and regulation, through a combination of the three branches of government.

Outline of Article

1. Introduction
2. A Brief History
3. * #Privacy in Literature
4. * # “The Right of Privacy.” - Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis
5. * # Invasion of privacy torts - William Prosser
6. Amendments
7. * # First
8. * # Third
9. * # Fourth
10. * # Fifth
11. * # Ninth
12. Privacy in Courts
13. * # Roe v Wade
14. * # Katz v. United States
15. * # Raakas v. Ilinois
16. * # etc.,
17. Important Legislation
18. Protections
19. * # Privacy Act of 1974
20. * # Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
21. * # FTC Act
22. * # Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
23. * # Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
24. * # Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act
25. * # Fair Credit Reporting Act
26. * # Electronic Communications Privacy Act
27. * # Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights of 2012,
28. Infringements
29. * # Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008
30. Congressional Timeline
31. * # 90th -100th Congress
32. * # 100th-110th Congress
33. * # 110th-115th Congress
34. Regulation of Privacy Legislation
35. * # Federal Trade Commission

Other pages to include(look below for hyperlinks): Main page

• Privacy Law
• Privacy laws of the United States
• Information privacy law

Examples of Protection (subsection)

• Privacy Act of 1974
• Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
• Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
• Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act
• Fair Credit Reporting Act
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act
• Information privacy law#HIPAA
• Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act

Examples of Infringements (subsections)

• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008

Outline and Purpose

Purpose: Why am I creating this new article I am creating this article to help draw attention to the specific committees, agencies and current laws that are presently related to privacy. While most people are aware of the Court Cases that have dramatically helped modify our definition of privacy, there are several developments that happened within the US Congress that both protect and infringe upon our privacy. This page serves to create a timeline of this information, focusing on influential agencies, people, and laws. I hope to be able to even include a timeline from the first mention of privacy in the 93rd congress to the one that is currently in session right now (115th Congress).

Outline of the article

The first section would be a short introduction outlining the history of privacy in legislation and committees.

The second would be a subsection of popularized occurrences

• Popularized Infringements
• Popularized Protections

Third section would be a Timeline (starting with the 93rd Congress and ending with the 115th Congress)

The fourth section would be Importance Agencies Created by Congress

The last section would be Influential People.

Other acts to link to (This is just for me)

Protections

Privacy Act of 1974

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act

Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Information privacy law#HIPAA

Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act

Information privacy law (good main link)

Infringements

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008

Good source for current Congress Privacy

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/right_of_privacy/5910#text=privacy&congress=111&current_status%5B%5D=28

Information Privacy Article

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

I personally believe that the first sentence, which serves as a definition of the topic, should have a reference. After doing a quick Google search I found that it was copied directly from the book “Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies”. I also believe that the bullet list the author created should also be referenced from the book “Programme Management: Managing Multiple Projects Successfully”. The sentence about the fair trade commission should be referenced from “PRIVACY ONLINE: A REPORT TO CONGRESS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION JUNE 1998”. Otherwise I believe all the facts are referenced correctly.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

I believe that everything in the article can be arguably relevant to the article topic. There was some information that I felt was extraneous/redundant and made the article less concise, but that was more a matter of opinion instead of something done incorrectly by the author.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is fairly neutral however; the author does advocate for suggestions on how to fix certain problems so in that way it is slightly biased. For example in the Internet section it suggests using particular solutions, suggesting that the author believes the government isn’t doing enough to protect information privacy.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The information from the article seems to come from reliable sources with most of the websites have the .org or .gov ending, and the articles all from academic journals with one even collected from the Berkeley Blues research paper page. Because most are .gov or from sources like the UN, I feel that by default they should be unbiased. Even the research studies within the sources list seems to be done using statistically sound practices, making the results reliable.

Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

Because privacy in general is a fairly new topic there is no apparent formation of contrasting viewpoints, as the general consensus argues fro stricter privacy laws, however if hypothetically we used the scale of strict versus free information privacy policy the author definitely prefers stricter policy to protect user information, and therefore over represents the users and not the companies that utilize the software.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

I clicked a few of the links and the ones I clicked worked correctly. There was however several instances of close paraphrasing throughout the article, with certain regions that should be contained in quotation marks, but are not.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

There was nothing that I could see that needed immediate updating in terms of out of date information, however I am not that knowledgeable about the topic so in terms of looking for missing and out of date information I would not be able to answer accurately without conducting my own research. However based on a quick glance maybe the timeline portion near the bottom could add new policy enactments considering the last one included in the article was 2008, and for the subsections under Information Types I feel that some of the examples can be elaborated.

The right to privacy (article)

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

This article did much better then the first, because the article itself is about another article so its sources are mostly first person quotations or recollections of the actual text, making it less likely that the sources referenced are unreliable.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Yes, everything in the article is relevant to the article topic, and the article even exceeds expectations by including a reception and influence heading that specifies why the initial article entitled “The right to privacy” is important, by providing examples in which its contents were referenced in recent privacy cases and opinion pieces.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is overall neutral in displaying the contents and intent of “The right to privacy”, however it fails to display the criticisms of the article. It provides quotes that praise the importance of the article, but not items that are criticized or argued as incorrect now.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The information comes mostly from the original article, in addition to a couple additional articles that analyze the meaning and recognize the importance of the original document. I don’t believe any of them are biased, because the ones that have opinions in them is used on the section about reception which is often comprised of people’s opinions.

Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

Yes the viewpoint that the privacy definition and limitations presented by the authors is correct is over represented as not may pitfalls of the article are discussed. I feel that it should have been briefly discussed so that readers know that the article is not perfect.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

The links that I clicked on are working, and there was no close paraphrasing with anything remotely similar to the sources were contained in quotation marks.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Because the article that the article summarizes itself is old, the date of the information collected in not out of date. I personally think the only thing that should be added to the article is a counterargument or criticism of “The right to privacy” within the reception heading.