FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1519164975> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1519164975 endingPage "1468" @default.
• W1519164975 startingPage "1437" @default.
• W1519164975 abstract "ABSTRACT-The federal privacy legislative scheme is composed of a fragmented patchwork of aging sector-specific statutes-many enacted prior to the advent of the home computer-that supplement the Fourth Amendment to regulate government access to information. The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 is one such statute, though few understand or utilize its protections. The Act prohibits law enforcement officials from searching for or seizing information from people who disseminate information to the public, such as reporters. Where it applies, the Act requires law enforcement officials to instead rely on compliance with a subpoena or the target's voluntary cooperation to gain access to information. While the Act clearly protects the press, its text reaches more broadly. Changes that have occurred in the information industry since the Act's passage underscore ambiguities in who and what it now protects. To revive its original privacy and speech protections, this Note advocates a reading of the Act to leverage its clear text to protect the privacy, speech, and business interests of information disseminators. Alternatively, compelling interest requirements for searches and ex ante procedural protections would protect similar privacy, speech, and business-continuity interests relevant to all sectors of today's information society.INTRODUCTIONThe federal privacy legislative scheme is a notoriously fragmented patchwork of aging sector-specific statutes.1 Where privacy interests intersect with criminal law enforcement, privacy statutes supplement the Fourth Amendment to regulate government access to information. Public interest campaigns have exhorted Congress to enact comprehensive information privacy rules2 and update key statutes such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.3 In the meantime, decades-old statutes passed prior to the advent of the home computer govern information privacy and compelled disclosure.The Privacy Protection Act of 19804 is an example of one such privacy statute. The Act prohibits law enforcement officials from searching for or seizing information from people who disseminate information to the public. Where it applies, the Act requires law enforcement officials to instead rely on compliance with a subpoena duces tecum5 or the target's voluntary cooperation to gain access to information from reporters and others engaged in information dissemination.6Congress enacted the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 as a response to an unpopular Supreme Court decision stemming from a controversial newsroom search at Stanford University.7 As a result, the Act clearly protects the press, but its text reaches more broadly.8 Since 1980, the pool of those potentially covered by the Act has increased dramatically as a result of changes in the information industry. As early as 1998, one Justice Department attorney acknowledged these changes.9 He stated that Congress didnot anticipate the explosivegrow[th] of the computer world, andthat given the dramatic expansion of digital publishing and home computer usage, the Act might now in fact protect any person who publishes online.10As that Justice Department attorney indicated, Congress did not deliberate over the Act with our modern information landscape in mind. As a result, three important aspects of the Act lack clarity: (1) what people it protects, (2) how the statutory classifications should be applied to digital content, and (3) what interests it protects. As to the first ambiguity, the Act can be construed to protect any individual intending to communicate to the public or some narrower subset of actors.11 A textual reading of the Act reaches broadly, but the Act's muddled origins as a First Amendment bill and the realities of law enforcement searches and seizures of increasingly technology-intensive environments beg consideration of borderline cases.As to the second ambiguity, how the statutory classifications apply to digital content is unclear rn two ways. …" @default.
• W1519164975 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1519164975 creator A5016773965 @default.
• W1519164975 date "2013-04-01" @default.
• W1519164975 modified "2023-09-22" @default.
• W1519164975 title "Reviving the Privacy Protection Act of 1980" @default.
• W1519164975 cites W201677050 @default.
• W1519164975 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W1519164975 type Work @default.
• W1519164975 sameAs 1519164975 @default.
• W1519164975 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1519164975 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1519164975 hasAuthorship W1519164975A5016773965 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C102938260 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C123201435 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C141972696 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C163981777 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C169093310 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C2778902089 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C2779777834 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C2781238917 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C78524284 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C102938260 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C123201435 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C141972696 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C144133560 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C163981777 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C169093310 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C17319257 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C17744445 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C199539241 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C2778902089 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C2779777834 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C2781238917 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C78524284 @default.
• W1519164975 hasConceptScore W1519164975C83009810 @default.
• W1519164975 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1519164975 hasLocation W15191649751 @default.
• W1519164975 hasOpenAccess W1519164975 @default.
• W1519164975 hasPrimaryLocation W15191649751 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W1485149060 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W1531046457 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W1544104126 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W1582395186 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W1848257607 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W212428315 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W2176938352 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W2207417587 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W2227139698 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W2257511756 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W2268182776 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W2287980939 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W2543605240 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W2592349576 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W2971864887 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W2989727876 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W3001722784 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W3122314044 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W3204555046 @default.
• W1519164975 hasRelatedWork W86974082 @default.
• W1519164975 hasVolume "107" @default.
• W1519164975 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1519164975 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1519164975 magId "1519164975" @default.
• W1519164975 workType "article" @default.