Law in the Internet Society

View   r4  >  r3  ...
ShyamPalaiyanurSecondPaper 4 - 23 Aug 2014 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondPaper"
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondEssay"

I. Introduction

As acknowledged in United States v. Jones, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence must evolve with advances in technology. However, the Supreme Court has yet to accept a case involving Fourth Amendment protections for email (only one circuit has held that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their email). Without clear guidance on how Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is applied to these advances in technology, the legislative branch is likely to provide too little protection. Perhaps this reticence to accept cases is due to a belief that a legislative body is better situated to “gauge changing public attitudes, to draw detailed lines, and to balance privacy and public safety in a comprehensive way.” Jones v. United States, 132 S.Ct 945, 964 (2012) (Alito, Concurring in the Judgment). However, I would argue that courts must provide guidance on how Fourth Amendment jurisprudence applies to the net in order to instruct legislatures on the proper balance in this area. Just as in Jones where the application of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to a Global-Positioning System (GPS) tracking device attached to an automobile remained unclear, the complexity of advances in the net requires court attention

Revision 4r4 - 23 Aug 2014 - 19:33:51 - EbenMoglen
Revision 3r3 - 11 May 2013 - 03:40:14 - ShyamPalaiyanur
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM