Privacy's other path: Recovering the law of confidentiality

Georgetown Law Journal

Volumn 96, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 123-182

  Richards, Neil M ^a   Solove, Daniel J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 37149021036     PISSN: 00168092     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (1890).
2. Harry Kalven, Jr., Privacy in Tort Law-Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong?, 31 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 326, 327 (1966).
3. Elbridge L. Adams, The Right of Privacy, and Its Relation to the Law of Libel, 39 AM. L. REV. 37, 37 (1905).
4. P. ALLAN DIONISOPOULOS & CRAIG R. DUCAT, THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY: ESSAYS AND CASES 20 (1976) (The Right to Privacy is "perhaps the most influential law journal piece ever published");
5. William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 CAL. L. REV. 383, 383 (1960) (The Right to Privacy is an "outstanding example of the influence of legal periodicals upon the American law").
6. As one commentator has observed, Warren and Brandeis's article "has attained what some might call legendary status" and has been a "seminal force in the development of a 'right to privacy' in American law." Benjamin E. Bratman, Brandeis and Warren's The Right to Privacy and the Birth of the Right to Privacy, 69 TENN. L. REV. 623, 624 (2002).
7. See, e.g., James H. Barron, Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890): Demystifying a Landmark Citation, 13 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 875, 877 (1979) (there is "near unanimity among courts and commentators that the Warren-Brandeis conceptualization created the structural and jurisprudential foundation of the tort of invasion of privacy");
8. Ruth Gavison, Too Early for a Requiem: Warren and Brandeis Were Right on Privacy vs. Free Speech, 43 S.C. L. REV. 437, 438 (1992) (Warren and Brandeis "single-handedly created a tort");
9. Irwin R. Kramer, The Birth of Privacy Law: A Century Since Warren and Brandeis, 39 CATH. U. L. REV. 703, 703-04 (1990).
10. ALPHEUS THOMAS MASON, BRANDEIS: A FREE MAN'S LIFE 70 (1946) (quoting Roscoe Pound).
11. See, e.g., WALTER F. PRATT, PRIVACY IN BRITAIN 19-37 (1979);
12. Edward J. Bloustein, Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser, 39 N. YU. L. REV. 962, 966-72 (1964) (arguing that although Warren and Brandeis's right to privacy expressly differentiated itself from existing doctrines such as defamation, property, and emotional distress, they actually "went very little beyond ... giving 'their right' and 'their interest' a name and distinguishing it from other rights or interests. It is only in asides of characterization and passing attempts at finding a verbal equivalent of the principle of privacy that we may find any further clues to the interest or value they sought to protect");
13. Robert C. Post, Rereading Warren and Brandeis: Privacy, Property, and Appropriation, 41 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 647, 655 (1991);
14. Walter F. Pratt, The Warren and Brandeis Argument for a Right to Privacy, 1975 PUB. L. 161.
15. See Neil M. Richards, The Information Privacy Law Project, 94 GEO. LJ. 1087, 1137-38 (2006);
16. Daniel J. Solove, A Taxonomy of Privacy, 154 U. PA. L. REV. 477, 526-29 (2005).
17. (a1848)41 Eng. Rep. 1171 (Ch.).
18. Prosser, supra note 4.
19. Id. at 389.
20. See, e.g., Kaye v. Robertson, [1991] F.S.R. 62,66 (CA.) (U.K.).
21. See, e.g., Barrymore v. News Group Newspapers, [1997] F.S.R. 600 (Ch.) (U.K.) (lover liable for breach of confidence);
22. Stephens v. Avery, (1988) 1 Ch. 449 (U.K.) (friend liable for breach of confidence);
23. Argyll v. Argyll, (1967) 1 Ch. 302 (U.K.) (spouse liable for breach of confidence).
24. Barrymore, [1997] F.S.R. at 601.
25. James Q. Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty, 113 YALE L.J. 1151(2004).
26. MASON, supra note 7, at 23-25;
27. MELVIN I. UROFSKY, LOUIS BRANDEIS AND THE PROGRESSIVE TRADITION 2 (1981).
28. DON R. PEMBER, PRIVACY AND THE PRESS: THE LAW, THE MASS MEDIA, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT 21 (1972).
29. Id. at 22.
30. See Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Law of Ponds, 3 HARV. L. REV. 1 (1889);
31. Samuel D. Warren, Jr. & Louis D. Brandeis, The Watuppa Pond Cases, 2 HARV. L. REV. 195 (1888).
32. See GINI GRAHAM SCOTT, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS: THE BATTLE FOR PERSONAL PRIVACY 37-38 (1995).
33. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 196.
34. See PEMBER, supra note 18, at 24-25.
35. Id. at 25.
36. Robert E. Mensel, "Kodakers Lying in Wait": Amateur Photography and the Right of Privacy in New York, 1885-1915, 43 AM. Q. 24, 28 (1991).
37. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 197.
38. See PRATT, supra note 8, at 19-37.
39. See e.g., G. EDWARD WHITE, TORT LAW IN AMERICA: AN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY 105-06 (expanded ed. 2003);
40. Martha Chamallas & Linda K. Kerber, Women, Mothers, and the Law of Fright: A History, 88 MICH. L. REV. 814, 816 (1990);
41. Nancy Levit, Ethereal Torts, 61 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 136, 140-41 (1992).
42. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 198.
43. Id. at 205.
44. Id. at 195 & n.4 (citing THOMAS M. COOLEY, THE LAW OF TORTS 29 (2d ed. 1888)). The first edition of Cooley's torts treatise in 1880 also contained the phrase.
45. See THOMAS M. COOLEY, THE LAW OF TORTS 29 (1st ed. 1880) [hereinafter COOLEY, LAW OF TORTS FIRST EDITION].
46. See STEPHEN M. FELDMAN, AMERICAN LEGAL THOUGHT FROM PREMODERNISM TO POSTMODERNISM 102-05 (2000) (discussing Cooley's influence on constitutional theory);
47. WHITE, supra note 28, at 115 (noting that Cooley was one of a handful of judges who contributed to the intellectual history of torts and that his torts treatise was "widely cited").
48. See generally THOMAS M. COOLEY, A TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WHICH REST UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION (1st ed. 1868);
49. COOLEY, LAW OF TORTS FIRST EDITION, supra note 31.
50. COOLEY, LAW OF TORTS FIRST EDITION, supra note 31, at 29.
51. Id. This body of law is discussed in greater detail in Part II.
52. See infra notes 152-156 and accompanying text.
53. (a1848) 41 Eng. Rep. 1171 (Ch.).
54. Prince Albert v. Strange, (1849) 64 Eng. Rep. 293, 295 (Ch.).
55. Id. at 312 (Bruce, V.C).
56. Id.
57. Prince Albert, 41 Eng. Rep. at 1178.
58. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 197.
59. Id. at 198.
60. Id. at 205.
61. Id. at 207.
62. See, e.g., PRATT, supra note 8, at 26-32;
63. Post, supra note 8, at 658. Robert Post notes further that "even Brandeis himself appears later to have abandoned any pretension that common law copyright could be given the interpretation he and Warren advocated in their article."
64. Id. (quoting Brandeis's dissent in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 253-55 (1918)).
65. Prince Albert v. Strange, (1848) 41 Eng. Rep. 1171, 1179 (Ch.).
66. Id. at 1179.
67. See Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 211-12.
68. Pollard v. Photographic Co., (1888) 40 Ch.D. 345, 349 (U.K.).
69. Warren & Brandeis, supra note 1, at 211.
70. Id.
71. Id.
72. Id.
73. Id. at 213.
74. Id.
75. Id. at 211.
76. Id. at 213-14.
77. DANIEL J. SOLOVE, MARC ROTENBERG & PAUL M. SCHWARZ, INFORMATION PRIVACY LAW 350 (2d ed. 2006) (quoting Hippocratic Oath).
78. F.W. MAITLAND, EQUITY: TWO COURSES OF LECTURES 7 (A.H. Chaylor & W.J. Whittaker eds., Fred. B. Rothman & Co. 1984) (1926);
79. see also BRIAN C. REID, CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE LAW 1 (1986). The term "confidence" in the early cases meant something broader than the modern meaning of "confidentiality. " "Confidence" meant trust and reliance, and it could be breached in a number of ways beyond the disclosure of confidential information, such as fraud and self-dealing. Nevertheless, the disclosure of confidential information constituted a large part of breaches of confidence.
80. Berd v. Lovelace, (1577) 21 Eng. Rep. 33 (ch.).
81. PRATT, supra note 8, at 42.
82. See, e.g., Monroe v. Twistleton, (1802) 170 Eng. Rep. 250, 251 ("[I]t shall never be endured that the confidence which the law has created while the parties remained in the most intimate of all relations, shall be broken whenever by the misconduct of one party ... the relation shall have been dissolved.");
83. see also PRATT, supra note 8, at 43-44.
84. Developments in the Law-Privileged Communication, 98 HARV. L. REV. 1450, 1458-60 (1985);
85. see also Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., An Historical Perspective on the Attorney-Client Privilege, 66 CAL. L. REV. 1061, 1087 (1978) ("There appear to be no American cases on the attorney-client privilege until the 1820s.").
86. Steele v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 3 Binn. 306, 313 (Pa. 1811).
87. Developments in the Law, supra note 63, at 1457-58.
88. G.W. Field & John B. Uhle, Privileged Communications, 37 AM. L. REG. 1, 1 (1889). The use of the phrase "confidential communications" was widespread during this period.
89. See, e.g., 1 JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, A TREATISE ON THE SYSTEM OF EVDDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW xlviii (1904) (listing the topic of "confidential communications" as an area of evidence law in his table of contents);
90. see also 4 JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, A TREATISE ON THE SYSTEM OF EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW §§ 2285-87 (1904).
91. PRATT, supra note 8, at 44-48.