Privacy laws of the United States
It usually excludes personal matters or activities which may reasonably be of public interest, like those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events.
[4] The early years in the development of privacy rights began with English common law, protecting "only the physical interference of life and property".
"[7] Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, partners in a new law firm, feared that this new small camera technology would be used by the "sensationalistic press."
[6] In the Supreme Court case of Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), the article was cited by a majority of justices, both those concurring and those dissenting.
In it, they explain why they wrote the article in its introduction: "Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of society".
The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.
And recognizing that technological advances will become more relevant, they write: "Now that modern devices afford abundant opportunities for the perpetration of such wrongs without any participation by the injured party, the protection granted by the law must be placed upon a broader foundation".
[8] There have been many laws related to privacy and data protection in recent years that have been enforced as a result of the rapid technological advancements.
Modern tort law, as first categorized by William Prosser, includes four categories of invasion of privacy:[11] Intrusion of solitude occurs where one person intrudes upon the private affairs of another.
[12] The Florida Supreme Court held that a cause of action for invasion of privacy was supported by the facts of the case, but in a later proceeding found that there were no actual damages.
Hacking into someone else's computer is a type of intrusion upon privacy,[13] as is secretly viewing or recording private information by still or video camera.
[15] Restrictions against the invasion of privacy encompasses journalists as well: The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering.
Consequently, although it is infrequently invoked, in some cases false light may be a more attractive cause of action for plaintiffs than libel or slander, because the burden of proof may be less onerous.
Example: If someone's reputation was portrayed in a false light during a personnel performance evaluation in a government agency or public university, one might be wronged if only a small number initially learned of it, or if adverse recommendations were made to only a few superiors (by a peer committee to department chair, dean, dean's advisory committee, provost, president, etc.).
[13] Appropriation is the oldest recognized form of invasion of privacy involving the use of an individual's name, likeness, or identity without consent for purposes such as ads, fictional works, or products.
[24] The law arose out of the Bork tapes controversy surrounding the Washington City Paper's publication of a list of films rented by Robert Bork, a U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals Judge who had been nominated to fill a seat on the United States Supreme Court at the time.
[25] The law prohibits the disclosure of personal information collected by video tape service providers unless it falls under certain exceptions.
Signed in law on August 21, 1996, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is a piece of legislation passed in the United States that limits the amount and types of information that can be collected and stored by healthcare providers.
[29] A core provision under COPPA is that a website operator must "obtain verifiable parental consent before any collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from children.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This was first affirmed by several Supreme Court Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision protecting a married couple's rights to contraception.
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court invoked the right to privacy regarding the sexual practices of same-sex couples.
However, due to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) breaking many precedents set by Griswold and Roe, the privacy interpretations brought about specifically by these cases are currently of ambiguous legal force.
[35] CA SB 1386 expands on privacy law and guarantees that if a company exposes a Californian's sensitive information this exposure must be reported to the citizen.
The bill would require a provider to disclose personal information of a user only if a court order has been issued, as specified, and certain other conditions have been satisfied.
The bill would impose civil penalties on a provider of a book service for knowingly disclosing a user's personal information to a government entity in violation of these provisions.
[42] Article 1, §7 of the Washington Constitution states that "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law".
