The dangers of surveillance

Harvard Law Review

Volumn 126, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1934-1965

  Richards, Neil M ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877991268     PISSN: 0017811X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (175)

1. See, e.g., O'HARROW R., JR., No Place To Hide 1-4 (2005).
2. James Bamford, The Black Box, Wired, Apr. 2012, at 78-80.
3. 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013).
4. Id. at 1147.
5. See generally Neil M. Richards, Intellectual Privacy, 87 Tex. L. Rev. 387 (2008) [hereinafter Richards, Intellectual Privacy].
6. For three recent introductions to this vast literature, see, for example, DAVID LYON, Sur-Veillance Studies (2007).
7. Surveillance And Democracy (Kevin D. Haggerty & Minas Samatas eds., 2010).
8. The Surveillance Studies Reader (Sean P. Hier & Joshua Greenberg eds., 2007).
9. See David Lyon, Supra Note 6, at 18-22.
10. See id. at 23.
11. Id. at 14.
12. See id. at 15-16.
13. REBECCA MACKINNON, Consent Of The Networked 36-40 (2012).
14. Anupam Chander Essay, Jasmine Revolutions, 97 Cornell L. Rev. 1505, 1516-17, 1525-28 (2012).
15. EVGENY MOROZOV, The Net Delusion 143-45 (2011).
16. Brendan M. Palfreyman, Note, Lessons from the British and American Approaches to Compelled Decryption, 75 Brook. L. Rev. 345-362 (2009).
17. See generally KIRSTIE BALL et al., A Report On The Surveillance Society: For The Information Commissioner By The Surveillance Studies Network (David Murakami Wood ed., 2006), available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_06_surveillance.pdf.
18. How We Are Being Watched, BBC News (Nov. 3, 2006, 2:21 AM), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6110866.stm.
19. See generally James Bamford, Supra Note 2.
20. See SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN, The Googlization Of Everything 26-30 (2011).
21. See DAVID KIRKPATRICK, The Facebook Effect 260-66 (2010).
22. STEVEN LEVY, IN THE PLEX 262-63, 336-37 (2011).
23. Chris Jay Hoofnagle et al., Behavioral Advertising: The Offer You Cannot Refuse, 6 HARV. L. & POL'Y REV. 273-279 (2012).
24. Neil M. Richards, The Perils of Social Reading, 101 GEO. L.J. 689, 698-99 (2013).
25. hereinafter Neil M. Richards, The Perils of Social Reading].
26. Danah Boyd & Kate Crawford, Six Provocations for Big Data 6 (Sept. 21, 2011) (unpublished manuscript) (on file with the Harvard Law School Library).
27. See generally Omer Tene & Jules Polonetsky, Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics, 11 NW. J. TECH. & INTELL. PROP. (forthcoming 2013).
28. Charles Duhigg, Psst, You in Aisle 5, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 16, 2012 (magazine), § 6, at 30, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html.
29. see also Tom Simonite, What Facebook Knows, MIT TECH. REV. (June 13, 2012), http://www.technologyreview.com/featured-story/428150/what-facebook-knows/?mod=related.
30. Clive Thompson, Sensors Everywhere, Wired, Dec. 2012, at 72, available at http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/20-12-st_thompson/.
31. For a critique of the "Internet of Things," see ROB VAN KRANENBURG, The Internet Of Things (2008), available at http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/notebook2_theinternetofthings.pdf.
32. ZYGMUNT BAUMAN & DAVID LYON, Liquid Surveillance 2-3 (2013).
33. Scott R. Peppet, Unraveling Privacy: The Personal Prospectus and the Threat of a FullDisclosure Future, 105 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1153-1156 (2011).
34. Id. at 1153-56.
35. See David Lyon, Supra Note 6, at 111-12.
36. Naomi Wolf, The New Totalitarianism of Surveillance Technology, GUARDIAN (Aug. 15, 2012, 4:12 PM), http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/15/new-totalitarianism-surveillance-technology.
37. See Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 688 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
38. See O'HARROW R., Supra Note 1, at 64, 98-103.
39. Cyrus Farivar, License Plates Scanned at Border, Data Shared with Car Insurance Group, ARS TECHNICA (Aug. 22, 2012, 4:36 PM), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/license-plates-scanned-at-border-data-shared-with-car-insurance-group/.
40. 47 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1010 (2006).
41. Id. § 1002.
42. The United Kingdom version of this regulation is The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations, 2009, S.I. 2009/859 (U.K.), available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2009/9780111473894/contents.
43. Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C.).
44. See generally Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Prosser's Privacy Law: A Mixed Legacy, 98 Calif. L. Rev. 1887 (2010).
45. 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401-3422 (2006 & Supp. V 2011) (allowing access to personal financial records held by a wide variety of entities, including casinos, insurance companies, automobile dealerships, credit unions, real estate companies, and travel agencies).
46. 18 U.S.C. § 2709 (allowing access to telephone and email information including billing and call history, email, subscriber information, and screen names).
47. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x (2006 & Supp. V 2011).
48. see also id. § 1681u (allowing access to credit history information and the header information on credit reports, including name, address, and employment history).
49. id. § 1681v (allowing access to a consumer's full credit report and "all other information in a consumer's file").
50. 50 U.S.C. §§ 401-442b (2006 & Supp. V 2011).
51. see also id. § 436 (allowing the issuance of NSLs in connection with investigations of improper disclosure of classified information by government employees).
52. See Office Of The Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep't Of Justice, A Review Of The Federal BUREAU OF Investigation's Use Of National Security Letters 10 (2007).
53. This precise language is quoted from the ECPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2709 (b)(1)-(2), but the other NSL provisions are substantially similar.
54. See 12 U.S.C. § 3414 (a)(5)(A) (RFPA).
55. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681u (b), 1681v(a) (FCRA).
56. 50 U.S.C. § 436 (a)(3) (National Security Act).
57. 18 U.S.C. § 2709 (b)(1)-(2) (ECPA).
58. 12 U.S.C. § 3414 (a)(5)(A) (RFPA).
59. The original FCRA NSL provision allowing access to the headers of credit reports only, 15 U.S.C. § 1681u (b), contains such a First Amendment limitation, but since the Patriot Act added § 1681v, which allows for the full credit report to be obtained without meeting the First Amendment requirement, it is unclear what practical effect the limitation in § 1681u(b) will have.
60. See Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1972).
61. See id. at 6-7.
62. 408 U.S. 1.
63. Id. at 13.
64. Id. at 13-14.
65. 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007).
66. Id. at 657 n.15 (citations omitted).
67. Id. at 673-74.
68. 507 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2007).
69. Id. at 1204.
70. See id. at 1205.
71. See id. at 1204-05.
72. See RICHARD A. POSNER, Not A Suicide Pact 130 (2006) (arguing that adherence to civil liberties like the right to privacy must be flexible where it conflicts with government antiterrorism efforts).
73. Richard A. Posner, Our Domestic Intelligence Crisis, wash. Post, Dec. 21, 2005, at A31, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001053.html.
74. GEORGE ORWELL, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
75. Irving Howe ed., Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1982 (1949).
76. See DANIEL J. SOLOVE, The Digital Person 29-36 (2004) (critiquing the usefulness of Orwell's metaphor as a tool in understanding the private database industry).
77. But see Neil M. Richards, Essay, The Information Privacy Law Project, 94 Geo. L.J. 1087-1133 (2006) (suggesting that the Orwell metaphor retains some validity as a tool to understand electronic surveillance).
78. Neil M. Richards, Intellectual Privacy, Supra Note 5, at 389.
79. Neil M. Richards, The Perils of Social Reading, Supra Note 20, at 691.
80. Neil M. Richards, Intellectual Privacy, Supra Note 5, at 403-04.
81. See, e.g., Ashutosh Bhagwat, Associational Speech, 120 YALE L.J. 978-998 (2011) ("An association is a coming together of individuals for a common cause or based on common values or goals.").
82. See generally JOHN D. INAZU, Liberty's Refuge (2012) (arguing for the protection of political- and religious-group autonomy under the alternative rubric of the right of assembly).
83. See generally JULIE E. COHEN, Configuring The Networked Self (2012).
84. See Neil M. Richards, Intellectual Privacy, Supra Note 5, at 408-12 (exploring this point in greater detail).
85. For a similar argument, see generally Seana Valentine Shiffrin, A Thinker-Based Approach to Freedom of Speech, 27 Const. Comment. 283 (2011).
86. 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
87. Id. at 630 (Holmes, J., dissenting).
88. U.S. 357 (1927).
89. Id. at 375.
90. Brandeis, J., concurring (emphasis added).
91. Although most courts justify free speech in terms of truth-seeking or democratic selfgovernance, some scholars have argued that free speech is better justified in terms of the autonomy or self-development of the individual. See, e.g., C. Edwin Baker, Scope of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, 25 UCLA L. Rev. 964, 990-92 (1978).
92. Martin H. Redish, The Value of Free Speech, 130 U. Pa. L. Rev. 591, 593-94 (1982).
93. David A. J. Richards, Free Speech and Obscenity Law: Toward a Moral Theory of the First Amendment, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 45-62 (1974).
94. Thomas Scanlon, A Theory of Freedom of Expression, 1 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 204, 210-19 (1972).
95. Free thought is a logically necessary precondition for autonomous speech, though this point is underdeveloped in the relevant literature. For an analysis of the relationship between free thought and autonomous speech, see Neil M. Richards, Intellectual Privacy, Supra Note 5, at 406 & n.113.
96. see generally Seana Valentine Shiffrin, Supra Note 69.
97. Jeremy Bentham, Panopticon, in 3 OPINIONS OF DIFFERENT AUTHORS UPON THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH 321-328 (Basil Montagu ed., 1816).
98. GEORGE ORWELL, Supra Note 63, at 4.
99. Id. at 14.
100. See, e.g., Kevin D. Haggerty & Richard V. Ericson, The Surveillant Assemblage, 51 BRIT. J. SOC. 605, 606-08 (2000).
101. DANIEL J. SOLOVE, Supra Note 64, at 33-35.
102. See generally David Lyon, Supra Note 6.
103. See generally ANTHONY GIDDENS, THE NATION-STATE AND VIOLENCE (1985).
104. See generally, e.g., Surveillance And Democracy, Supra Note 6.
105. See, e.g., Maria Los, A Trans-Systemic Surveillance: The Legacy of Communist Surveillance in the Digital Age, in Surveillance And Democracy, Supra Note 6, at 173, 174-75.
106. Lilian Mitrou, The Impact of Communications Data Retention on Fundamental Rights and Democracy - The Case of the EU Data Retention Directive, in Surveillance And Democracy, Supra Note 6, at 127-138.
107. See, e.g., David Lyon, Supra Note 6, at 15.
108. KIRSTIE BALL et al., Supra Note 15, at 4.
109. LEE C. BOLLINGER, Uninhibited, Robust, And Wide-Open 12 (2010).
110. 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
111. Id. at 271-72 (second omission in original).
112. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415-433 (1963).
113. Frederick Schauer, Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the "Chilling Effect," 58 B.U. L. REV. 685-688 (1978).
114. See generally, e.g., Leslie Kendrick, Speech, Intent and the Chilling Effect, 54 WM. & MARY L. REV. (forthcoming 2013).
115. See JULIE E. COHEN, Supra Note 68, at 223-25.
116. Julie Cohen, What Privacy Is For, 126 HARV. L. REV. 1904, 1912, 1918 (2013).
117. TIMOTHY MACKLEM, Independence Of Mind 36 (2006).
118. See ACLU v. NSA, 493 F.3d 644-657 (6th Cir. 2007).
119. See Al-Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190, 1201-05 (9th Cir. 2007).
120. See Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1150-53 (2013).
121. See Neil M. Richards, Intellectual Privacy, Supra Note 5, at 427-28 (providing examples).
122. See generally Neil M. Richards, The Perils of Social Reading, Supra Note 20.
123. See, e.g., Kevin D. Haggerty & Minas Samatas, Introduction, in Surveillance And Democracy, Supra Note 6, at 1, 3-4.
124. See David Lyon, Supra Note 6, at 14.
125. S. REP. NO. 94-755, at 81 (1976).
126. Quoting Memorandum from Frederick Baumgardner to William Sullivan (Jan. 28, 1964)).
127. Maria Los, Supra Note 82, at 176-77.
128. Id. at 180.
129. See, e.g., Anupam Chander, Supra Note 13, at 1508.
130. Matthieu Aikins, Jamming Tripoli, Wired, June 2012, at 146, 176.
131. United States v. Isa, 923 F.2d 1300-1302 (8th Cir. 1991).
132. ELI PARISER, The Filter Bubble 44 (2011).
133. See, e.g., ROY COLEMAN, Reclaiming The Streets 226-28 (2004).
134. David Lyon, Supra Note 6, at 107-08.
135. Roy Coleman, Surveillance in the City: Primary Definition and Urban Spatial Order, in THE Surveillance Studies Reader, Supra Note 6, at 231, 234-35.
136. See ROY COLEMAN, Supra Note 109, at 111.
137. David Lyon, Supra Note 6, at 30-32.
138. STEVEN LEVY, Supra Note 18, at 336-37, 341.
139. See Jon D. Michaels, All the President's Spies: Private-Public Intelligence Partnerships in the War on Terror, 96 CALIF. L. REV. 901, 917-18 (2008).
140. OSCAR H. GANDY, JR., The Panoptic Sort 15 (1993).
141. See generally JOHN GILLIOM, Overseers Of The Poor (2006).
142. DAVID LYON, Surveillance After September 11 (2003).
143. THE NEW POLITICS OF SURVEILLANCE AND VISIBILITY (Kevin D. Haggerty & Richard V. Ericson eds., 2006).
144. Surveillance As Social Sorting (David Lyon ed., 2003).
145. Danielle Keats Citron, Technological Due Process, 85 WASH. U. L. REV. 1249-1258 (2008).
146. Orin S. Kerr, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution, 102 MICH. L. REV. 801, 806-08 (2004).
147. 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (2006).
148. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725 (2006).
149. 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2006).
150. See Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEO. L.J. 123, 134-40 (2007).
151. Neil M. Richards, The Perils of Social Reading, Supra Note 20, at 692.
152. Madison's Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1789-1800), in 4 The Debates In The Several State Conventions On The Adoption Of The Federal Constitution 546, 553-76 (Jonathan Elliot ed., Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott Co. 2d ed. 1891).
153. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006 & Supp. V 2011).
154. U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749-773 (1989).
155. Quoting EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 105 (1973).
156. Henry Steele Commager, The Defeat of America, N.Y. rev. Books, Oct. 5, 1972, at 7.
157. Reviewing RICHARD J. BARNET, Roots Of War (1972).
158. U.s. Dep't Of Health, Educ. & Welfare, Records, Computers, And The Rights Of Citizens: Report Of The Secretary's Advisory Committee On Automated Personal Data Systems (1973).
159. LAWRENCE LESSIG, Code: Version 2.0, at 227 (2006).
160. DANIEL J. SOLOVE, Understanding Privacy 130 (2008).
161. U.s. Dep't Of Health, Educ. & Welfare, Supra Note 127, at 41.
162. see also id. 29-30, 41-42.
163. See In re NSA Telecomm. Record Litig., 671 F.3d 881, 893 (9th Cir. 2011).
164. See generally Matthieu Aikins, Supra Note 104.
165. 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (2006).
166. see also Paul Ohm, Probably Probable Cause: The Diminishing Importance of Justification Standards, 94 MINN. L. REV. 1514-1554 (2010).
167. For an expanded treatment of this argument in the context of reading records, see generally Neil M. Richards, The Perils of Social Reading, Supra Note 20.
168. 18 U.S.C. § 2511 ("any person").
169. Id. § 2511 (4)(a).
170. Id. § 2520 (2)(B).
171. 18 U.S.C. § 2710 (2006).
172. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.90.05 (West 2012).
173. 638 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2011).
174. 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013).
175. Id. at 121-22.