Privacy

2
Essay
75.1
The Memory Gap in Surveillance Law
Patricia L. Bellia
Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

I thank A.J. Bellia, Susan Freiwald, Nicole Garnett, John Nagle, Ira Rubenstein, and Paul Schwartz for helpful comments and discussions, and research librarian Christopher O’Byrne for expert research assistance.

Privacy Technology Telecommunications
2
Essay
75.1
Privacy Decisionmaking in Administrative Agencies
Kenneth A. Bamberger
Assistant Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law
Deirdre K. Mulligan
Clinical Professor of Law; Director, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic; Director, Clinical Program, UC Berkeley School of Law

Much appreciation to Colin Bennett, Malcolm Crompton, Peter Cullen, Lauren Edelman, Robert Gellman, Chris Hoofnagle, Robert Kagan, Jennifer King, Anne Joseph O’Connell, Fred B. Schneider, Ari Schwartz, Paul Schwartz, and the participants at The University of Chicago Law School’s Surveillance Symposium for insight, comment, and discussion; Nuala O’Connor Kelly and Peter Swire for consenting to be interviewed about their experience in privacy leadership roles within the United States government; Sara Terheggen, Marta Porwit Czajkowska, Rebecca Henshaw, and Andrew McDiarmid for their able research.

Administrative Law Privacy Technology
2
Article
76.3
From Victorian Secrets to Cyberspace Shaming
Paul M. Schwartz
Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law; Director, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology

I greatly benefited from a presentation of this Review to a faculty workshop at UCLA School of Law. Many thanks to the faculty there for their helpful comments, and to Jon Michaels and the faculty colloquium committee for the invitation. Thanks as well to Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Frank Zimring for their suggestions. In the interest of full disclosure, I wish to note that Professor Solove and I are coauthors on a casebook, Information Privacy Law (Aspen 3d ed 2009).

Privacy Technology Telecommunications
Print
Article
84.4
The Myth of Fourth Amendment Circularity
Matthew B. Kugler
Assistant Professor, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

The authors thank Jane Bambauer, Tim Casey, Adam Chilton, Shari Seidman Diamond, Tom Ginsburg, Daniel Hemel, Bert Huang, Aziz Huq, Orin Kerr, Joshua Kleinfeld, Andy Koppelman, Genevieve Lakier, Katerina Linos, Jonathan Masur, Richard McAdams, Janice Nadler, Martha Nussbaum, Laura Pedraza-Fariña, Michael Pollack, Uriel Procaccia, John Rappaport, Richard Re, Victoria Schwartz, Christine Scott-Hayward, Nadav Shoked, Chris Slobogin, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Matt Tokson, and Laura Weinrib, as well as workshop participants at Northwestern University Law School, the University of Chicago Law School, the American Law and Economics Association conference, and the Privacy Law Scholars Conference for comments on earlier drafts, the Carl S. Lloyd Faculty Fund for research support, and Michelle Hayner for helpful research assistance.

Lior Jacob Strahilevitz
Sidley Austin Professor of Law, University of Chicago
It is very difficult to find any proposition in Fourth Amendment law to which every judge, lawyer, and scholar subscribes.
Empirical Analysis Fourth Amendment Privacy

Volumes