What Fordham Knows About Justice Scalia
Back in January, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a speaker at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law’s midwinter conference on privacy issues. Sitting in the New York office of Weil Gotshal, Scalia told attendees that privacy was not that important to him.
From the Associated Press (available cached only):
Discussions of privacy rights in the digital era should distinguish between such confidential data as medical records and information that might be personal but is easy to find out, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday.Considering every fact about someone’s life private is “extraordinary,” he said, noting that data such as addresses have long been discernible, even if technology has made them easier to find.
“Every single datum about my life is private? That’s silly,” Scalia [said].
Well, Fordham Law Professor Joel Reidenberg interpreted that as a challenge. He gave the fifteen students in his Information Privacy Law class a special assignment this semester: Track down everything available on the Web about Antonin Scalia to compile a dossier on him.
Find out what they found out, after the jump.
Joel Reidenberg, the founding director of the Fordham Center on Law & Information Policy, shared the story during a presentation at a conference yesterday on Privacy Rights and Wrongs at Fordham.
“Justice Scalia said he doesn’t care what people find out about him on the Internet,” said Reidenberg during his presentation on the transparency of personal information. “So I challenged my class to compile a dossier on him.”
Now four months later, at the end of the semester, the dossier (available online somewhere, but password protected) is 15 pages long. Among its contents are Nino’s home address, his home phone number, the movies he likes, his food preferences, his wife’s personal e-mail address, and “photos of his lovely grandchildren.”
“When the discrete bits of personal information were assembled at the end of the semester, the extent of the overall dossier and some of the particular items of readily available information on the web concerning his family and family life were astonishing to the class,” Reidenberg wrote to us.
Reidenberg argues that technological constraints should be built into the infrastructure of online networks in recognition of users’ privacy rights. (We think this would perhaps translate to Facebook defaulting to private settings — e.g., letting only friends see your profile — rather than the current default upon signing up, granting access to your whole city or university network.) Laws around norms of non-transparency of personal information and data misuse need to be stronger, he said.
“So, what are you going to do with the dossier now?” we asked Reidenberg after his talk.
“I might write to Scalia to tell him what we’ve done and see what he thinks,” Reidenberg said, laughing.
“We’ll probably write about this on Above The Law,” we replied. Reidenberg stopped laughing.
Justice Scalia, Talmudic Scholars On Privacy, Free Speech [Chabad Lubavitch Global News]
Associated Press: Scalia speaks on digital privacy at NYC conference [Associated Press via Privacy Lives]
(101) Comments
Comments
First.
First.
why did he stop laughing? wasn't the whole point to be sensationalist and teach scalia a lesson? he shouldn't be sad that ATL covered his efforts.
in fact, PUBLISH THAT SHIT! c'mon, someone w/ the password cut and paste.
This just in: there's no privacy on the internet. Big f'ing deal.
Why isn't this information being published? Scalia specifically said it would be no big deal if it was.
Publish it and see if Scalia is really a principled jurist that thinks the publication is fine or just the know-nothing ideologue he is perceived to be.
Let's be honest, it's publicly available information that Scalia likes all foods.
This kinda proves Scalia's point, no? The information is already available on the internet. Anyone could put it together. Therefore, it's dumb to claim that its private.
And also, none of that information seems even remotely embarrassing.
7 - the point is he doesn't want his address published. Its presence on the internet in a difficult to find place does not equal it being published on ATL. Thus he is wrong by equating the two.
6 - Post of the day.
I wonder if Latham cares what people find out on the Internet about its deplorable treatment of its first years.
Doesn't the exercise prove exactly what Scalia was saying?
Further, does anyone argue with the premise that not every detail of everyone's life is private?
I don't understand the point of this post.
9 -- Where did Scalia say he didn't want his address published?
9 - where does it say that he doesn't want his address published? He said "Discussions of privacy rights in the digital era *should distinguish* between such confidential data as medical records and information that might be personal but is easy to find out," implying that privacy rights aren't as strong in the latter.
And you don't really have a right to privacy in your address-- see, e.g., the phone book.
14 -- Maybe you don't, but I live on a secret, hidden island.
12-14 -You can keep your number unlisted.
I agree that they should publish his address.
#7 hit the nail on the head.
This in no-way disproves Scalia's point. It sounds like general purpose d-baggery to me.
11, et al.:
We have to withhold judgment for now whether this exercise proves what Scalia was saying or whether Scalia would find it scary and threatening that a 15-page dossier about him of personal information he is not particularly concerned about could be assembled so easily.
In my view, I think Scalia would find this a little bit disconcerting. But then again, does he really care about reality? He prefers conservative judicial nonsense to any sense of what the real world is like.
16 -- I'm sure he wouldn't care if his address were published. He's got federal protection already, plus I bet he has a TON of guns.
I wonder what movies Scalia likes?
probably Gone with the Wind and Patton or some crap like that
I wonder what movies Scalia likes?
probably Gone with the Wind and Patton or some crap like that
Great job, Fordham. That's reeaally good for #30!!
Reidenberg proves the point that once certain people hear "Scalia" they lose the ability to form rational, cogent thoughts. I can only imagine that if Thomas had woken from oral argument slumber to agree with Scalia, Reidenberg would have had his students prepare a full-blown conspiracy chart connecting the duo to the Rosicrucians and the Elders of Zion.
The core of Scalia's point is that there is no difference between a handful of the public knowing information about you and the entire public knowing it.
Thus if the information exists somewhere, it should be treated as if it's everywhere.
This proves what we already knew--Scalia is an embarrassment and a moron.
20 - that's true, when alito came to NYU this semester he had 5 secret service guys
Public figure.
25 = CLS 2L Stud
19: " plus I bet he has a TON of guns."
Too funny!
23 -- YASFRAT. I mean, the guy is a public figure and is roundly criticized on many grounds, including fairly personal attacks, regularly in closely watched forums.
Like he would give a shit if some Fordham 3L published a dossier telling the world that he likes butter pecan, lives in Alexandria and eats a pound of spaghetti every night.
Stupid. Scalia is one of the most famous people in America. Of course you can get 15 pages of crap about him if you google him. You can also see pictures of Brittany's snatch when she was fat drunk. The concept of privacy is relevant only to the extent the government infringes upon it.
Scalia is one of the finest men ever to sit on the Supreme Court. Period.
30 -
I find your anger arousing.
Scalia is one of the finest reactionary bigots ever to sit on the Supreme Court. Period.
And 30 - thanks for the primer on information privacy law. Ever heard of the intrusion, disclosure and appropriation torts? Ever heard of HIPAA? FCRA? Moron.
24 f'ing ROCKs
nailed it, and nailed that jerkoff scalia but good son
What a dumb project. "ZOMG WE KNOW WHAT FOOD HE LIKES!!!"
This isn't like someone found his f'ing social security number, or his browser cache. They found pretty lame pieces of information. Big deal.
Why anyone thinks this "proves" anything, except that Fordham students and professors have THE fluffiest courses, is beyond me.
Reidenberg thinks he's done something clever and so apes for a pat on the head and a banana from the haters on the Left though in fact that he really just proved Scalia's point. Apparently he's too dim to understand the point. This is typical of has been happening in academia over the last 40 years as emotionalism has replaced reason in the classroom.
I nominate William Parente for lawyer of the week, at the very least.
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-lidead2212677842apr21,0,905831.story
AGAIN, Scalia's point was that once information is somewhere, it shouldn't really matter if it's everywhere. WHAT AN IDIOT! 36 = even more of an idiot.
how exactly did 24 nail it? lefties get so angry about scalia their brains shut off and they become as dumb as rednecks.
Wow, 24, spoken like a true liberal. "Rather than interpret Scalia's statement as he stated, we shall obtain the 'core' principle, which I shall create out of thin air, and then eviscerate the speaker by developing a 'core' principle unrelated to his actual words."
Scalia is a fine man. Because he's conservative, he's a bigot. Well-reasoned.
Privacy is a dying friend in the information age and there is nothing that we can do to stop it. Just like the Pirate Bay decision is not going to change the way the internet works the old legal ideas of privacy are not going to hamper technological innovation and the dissemination of information in the technology age.
It seems like old man Scalia accepts modernity more so than most of the people posting here. I find that somewhat sad despite a respect for each Supreme Court justice, especially Scalia. (Well except JPS and that goofy knot he ties around his neck.)
"Like he would give a shit if some Fordham 3L published a dossier telling the world that he likes butter pecan, lives in Alexandria and eats a pound of spaghetti every night."
LMFAO
24, way to knock down that straw man.
I wonder if Scalia is reading this post. On second thought, after oral arguments today in the firefighter promotion case, he's probably thinking of ways to help white people who don't need the help.
45="Reverse" bigot.
16 - They don't need to publish his address. Anyone with the ability to type can locate it, along with the price he paid and its most recent tax assessment, in 2 minutes using washingtonpost.com. And yes, anyone who wants to can find the record of my condo purchase as well. Big frickin deal.
[insert uninformed, boilerplate Scalia bashing by stupid law school student who hasn't read any of his opinions]
"thinking of ways to help white people who don't need the help."
Couldn't he be thinking of ways to *not hurt* white people where they don't deserve to be hurt? There are limited resources out there; let's attempt to apportion at least some of them by merit.
Pardon my split infinitive.
48: Isn't it much more likely that law school students HAVE in fact read many of his opinions? Isn't that what we all did in law school?
It would be more accurate to say: [insert Scalia bashing by law school student who has not yet become a disenchanted lawyer who has learned that all supreme court (and appellate) judges substitute their values and policy preferences in place of unbiased legal analysis]
@5 -- Scalia did not say that widespread publication of very personal information would be no big deal.
What he did say is that not every datum about a person's life is private. He noted, rightly, that some vital statistics have long been considered public information--including name, date of birth, address, occupation. But details and pictures of family life are well beyond what he was referring to.
More accurately, find opinions Scalia wrote that don't start with Scalia, J. DISSENTING...
50 -
no.
-48
48 -
You're wrong. And an idiot.
Love,
50
So, I want to be a liberal but every time you guys try to prove a point (e.g., Reidenberg and the commenters here), I can't help but think how totally wrongheaded and sophomoric it is. Why can't Cass Sunstein comment on ATL so I can at least appreciate whatever point is trying to be made here.
Scalia should file an estoppel in pais action.
Scalia should file an estoppel from eating so much spaghetti action. Against himself.
Conservatives are terribly stupid. But they always have the best Manhunt profiles.
What's Scalia Manhunt screenname?
-- Lawyer Gay (aka SCOTUS Whore)
3 - He stopped laughing while he pondered how a once decent blog could possibly have become so crappy.
Also, he was considering the compromising photos of Lat that his students dug up.
Home phone # please.
How does the fact that it's becoming increasingly easier to use the Internet to find information that most people would prefer not be there mean that that's somehow the way it should be and must be?
Ahhh, Joel, good to see your sassiness hasn't abated since I've graduated. You were always one of my favorite profs because of that. I can only hope this ends in a Reidenberg vs. Scalia cage-match. Now THAT would be a way to move past #30, Fordham (cuz lord knows your Career Services office isn't going to do it!)
I wonder what Fordham can dig up on Partner Emeritus.
20- Patton is not crap. Please shut up.
I don't think Scalia is a big movie buff, but he does enjoy opera a lot.
50 --
Gosh, you're right.
Now get back to circle jerking with your fellow libs over Brennan opinions.
Kisses,
48
48 -
Gosh, you're so persuasive. I bet you're the type of moron/bigot who would publicly state that you respect Scalia because he's not afraid to rely on "traditional moral values."
Sincerely,
50
This is just the kind of coarseness and disunity that Obama is working to solve.
50 --
Typical lib. Anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot/homophobe/racist/sexist. You and Barney Frank are so compelling.
Maybe I should just be a good lib and catch up with the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
--48
48 -
Or maybe you can just pine for those days of yore, when "states' rights" were respected and segregation, bigotry and discrimination based on race/gender/sexual orientation were able to run free. Your argument would be of more force if history hadn't repudiated it, strongly and repeatedly.
50
THE OPPOSITE OF PRIVACY IS FREE SPEECH.
Ethiopians at DLA Piper!!
Gee, yet another example of liberals deciding just to go after people personally with whom disagree.
How novel.
Now, having to resort to this is *usually* a sign you're on the wrong side of the argument, but I guess that quit bothering some people years ago.
I think you're all missing out on the true purpose of this project:
Filling up the long afternoons of Fordham 3Ls who might have otherwise been wasting them on fairlyland dreams of finding employment.
Bravo Prof.!
Comment removed by moderator.
Bravo #62 Bravo!!!
50 --
At first, I didn't think much of your argument...but then you added the ol' double-adverb-twist of "strongly and repeatedly," and I was convinced.
The problem with a lib like you is that you cannot fathom a world in which people disagree with your liberal agenda.
And, according to the compelling logic of your posts, those who disagree w/you have evil, racist/sexist/homophobic motives...and most definitely long for the 1850's.
Pathetic. Yet another demonstration of the typical lib who preaches "tolerance" and "acceptance"....of his/her opinions only.
--48
I wonder how kozinski feels about internet privacy?
i tried reading the phone book once but it started slow and never picked up the pace.
did they put his daughter's arrest report for DUI up?
Liberals often confuse the progress of science with the progress of civilization and culture (largely because they are often uncivilized and uncultured). History, dear 50, has only "strongly and repeatedly" repudiated culture and civilization. As a society grows affluent, its mob eventually becomes large and strong enough to overpower the (by then decadent) elite that had created and nurtured such civilization and culture as it had. The mob then degrades and dumbs down what it captures until the society disintegrates into little more than a barracks.
The progress which has occurred since the nineteenth century in America has been scientific and industrial, driven primarily by the elites which the likes of 50 deride. This progress has fattened the mob to the point where it, led by bandits picking up nickels in front of their own steam-roller, has all but smothered the elites' effort to preserve some modicum of culture.
Soon, soon the "social progress" in which even 50 probably doesn't believe will get so bad as to reverse the pace of advance of technological progress. It's already far too late for the West; China, unburdened by a fat mob with snake-charming leaders, is ready to take the reins of world dominance.
Did they collect any photos of Scalia's hairy back?
Did they collect any photos of Scalia's hairy back?
those of you asking for scalia's address and phone number cannot even do that which an unemployed fordham 3L can - look it up in the phone book online! EPIC FAIL for each of you homosexual liberal degenerates.
72, This post is racist.
Comment removed by moderator.
41 - a sufficient number of conservatives are bigots so as to make this a reasonable supposition.
87 - The modern definition of bigot is anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal.
Thanks for playing!
The entire set of "research" done by the prof's students, and this article, is total c_cktease unless they have the balls to actually publish their findings. Otherwise there's no point to it at all and the prof is just a passive aggressive blowhard.
31 likes 'em plump
FYI, Fairfax County property records are publicly available. Based on the address 75 provided, you can find out all about Scalia's residence: how much be bought it for in 1983, size, current assessed value, etc.
http://icare.fairfaxcounty.gov/Search/GenericSearch.aspx?mode=ADDRESS
81-
Where's the campfire and flashlight?
Sounds like #81 is a sophomore who just finished reading Atlas Shrugged.
93, your mom shrugged
oohhhh snap !
its public knowledge that Scalia drinks wine at lunch when he is at work. I remember when that was quite common (years ago) but not so much today. so tell me partners, do you drink at lunch an encourage your associates to do the same or is Scalia a big fat toad?
81 wins the award of most incomprehensibly stupid post of the week. We don't even need to see the rest of the nominees or wait until the end of the week.
Congrats, 81!
Why are some attempting to make this a liberal v conservative issue? It's simply an exercise pitting privacy concerns against free speech rights.
My own take is that Scalia is missing a major point in his claim that the First Amendment trumps online privacy claims by individuals. Most of the information found online was never intended by the individual to be publicly available. While you may call them naive' for believing the privacy guarantees found on websites where they entered the private information in the first place, the fact is that there WAS a guarantee. If a bank, hospital or school allowed such info to be made public, they would be liable for damages. Would Scalia defend those disclosures by claiming that those institutions were simply exercising their First Amendent rights? Of course not. So, what's the difference?
Clearly, Justice Scalia is a hypocrite but on top of that he's not in touch with reality. What did he think would happen when privacy protections were stripped from people? Did he actually think he's be immune?
My advice Antonin is to suck it up. This is the America you forced on others so live with it.
This is dangerous. What if Rush Limbaugh told his 6,000,000+ listeners to gather data about liberals. What if Bill O'Reilly did the same? All it takes is one unstable person to get some of that data and ..... (you can fill in the blanks).
This is dangerous. What if Rush Limbaugh told his 6,000,000+ listeners to gather data about liberals. What if Bill O'Reilly did the same? All it takes is one unstable person to get some of that data and ..... (you can fill in the blanks).
Publish it and see if Scalia is really a principled jurist that thinks the publication is fine or just the know-nothing ideologue he is perceived to be.