Scalia Doesn't Believe in Privacy; Gets Some Academic What-for

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/justice_scalia_responds_to_for.php

The professor had chosen Scalia as the target for privacy invasion because of the Justice's remarks at a January conference organized by the Institute of American and Talmudic Law. Scalia's views on the privacy of personal information online are summed up nicely by this quote:

"Every single datum about my life is private? That's silly," Scalia [said].

Professor Joel Reidenberg and his class now have a 15-page dossier on Scalia, including his home address, the value of his home, his home phone number, the movies he likes, his food preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address, and "photos of his lovely grandchildren."

"I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law.

It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any."
Click to expand...

I'm in love with Professor Reidenberg.
 
I like how Scalia thinks it's "not responsible" to collect this data.

I'm sure that marketing companies, data mining companies, and scam artists are going to back off from collecting my personal information when I inform them that Scalia and I feel their actions are "not responsible".
 
What a ballsy professor and interesting topic.

How much privacy should we give up? What has a REP (Reasonable Expectation of Privacy) and what does not is a huge issue in the study of the fourth amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures).

Your house has always been the most protected as far as privacy goes. The explosion of electronic information has created a veritable untamed frontier in 4th A. jurisprudence.

My personal views tend toward privacy. I hate cameras watching me everywhere I go. It just feels too big brotherish.

I also hate the argument "If you aren't breaking the law, you should have nothing to hide." People advancing this simply don't get it.
 
currently reading Blown to Bits and they spend a lot of time talking about this.. i'm reading it for my computer engineering honors section, which is just a weekly 2-hour roundtable discussion with honors students and CS faculty. most seem to lean libertarian and are, like the authors of Blown to Bits, very bothered by the whole mess. i personally don't care. perhaps i'm just not a private person.. i can't think of anything i wouldn't tell a person who asked, regardless of what it was or if i knew them well.
 
[quote name='Koggit']currently reading Blown to Bits and they spend a lot of time talking about this.. i'm reading it for my computer engineering honors section, which is just a weekly 2-hour roundtable discussion with honors students and CS faculty. most seem to lean libertarian and are, like the authors of Blown to Bits, very bothered by the whole mess. i personally don't care. perhaps i'm just not a private person.. i can't think of anything i wouldn't tell a person who asked, regardless of what it was or if i knew them well.[/QUOTE]
OK, but then why didn't you answer the questions about yourself in the tax thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top