Page 197 - Privacy in a Cyber Age Policy and Practice

NOTES 185

14. United States v. Miller (425 U.S. 435, 1976).
15. Smith v. Maryland (442 U.S. 735, 1979).
16. Stephen E. Henderson, “After United States v. Jones, after the Fourth Amend-
ment Third Party Doctrine,” North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 14
(2013): 434. “According to Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, ‘[t]he
switching equipment that processed those numbers [was] merely the mod-
ern counterpart of the operator who, in an earlier day, personally completed
calls for the subscriber.” Orin S. Kerr, “The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine,”
Michigan Law Review 107, 4 (2009): 561–601.
17. Orin S. Kerr, “The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine,” 561–601.
18. Richard A. Epstein, “Privacy and the Third Hand: Lessons from the Com-
mon Law of Reasonable Expectations,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24,
3 (2009): 2000.
19. “The Taneja Group estimated the total cloud storage hardware market in 2010
was $3.2 billion, growing 31 percent per year to $9.4 billion by 2014.” Patrick
Scully, “Cloud Storage” Broadcast Engineering 54, 11 (2012): 30–33.
20. Craig Mundie, “Data Pragmatism: Focus on Data Use, Not Data Collection,” For-
eign Affairs (March/April 2014), http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140741/
craig-mundie/privacy-pragmatism. Thomas H. Davenport, “Who Owns Your
Data Exhaust?” The Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2013, http://blogs.wsj.
com/cio/2013/11/20/who-owns-your-data-exhaust/.
21. Will Thomas DeVries, “Protecting Privacy in the Digital Age,” Berkeley Tech-
nology Law Journal 18, 1 (2003): 291–292, 293.
22. Gerald G. Ashdown, “The Fourth Amendment and the ‘Legitimate Expecta-
tion of Privacy,” Vanderbilt Law Review 34, 1 (1981): 1289, 1315; Susan W.
Brenner & Leo L. Clarke, “Fourth Amendment Protection for Shared Privacy
Rights in Stored Transactional Data,” Journal of Law and Policy 14 (2006): 211;
Andrew J. DeFilippis, Note, “Securing Informationships: Recognizing a Right
to Privity in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence,” The Yale Law Journal 115,
5 (2006): 1086, 1092; Susan Freiwald, “First Principles of Communications Pri-
vacy,” Stanford Technology Law Review 3 (2007); Lewis R. Katz, “In Search of
a Fourth Amendment for the Twenty-first Century,” Indiana Law Journal 65,
3 (1990): 549, 564–66; Matthew D. Lawless, “The Third Party Doctrine Redux:
Internet Search Records and the Case for a ‘Crazy Quilt’ of Fourth Amend-
ment Protection,” UCLA Journal of Law and Technology (2007): 1, 3; Arnold
H. Loewy, “The Fourth Amendment as a Device for Protecting the Innocent,”
Michigan Law Review 81, 5 (1983); Christopher Slobogin, Privacy at Risk: The
New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment Chicago, Univer-
sity of Chicago Press (2007): 151–164; Scott E. Sundby, “‘Everyman’s’ Fourth
Amendment: Privacy or Mutual Trust Between Government and Citizen?”
Columbia Law Review 94, 6 (1994): 1757–58.
23. “The EU’s proposal includes three elements in particular that lend themselves
to a property-based conception: consumers are granted clear entitlements to
their own data; the data, even after it is transferred, carries a burden that ‘runs
with it’ and binds third parties; and consumers are protected through rem-
edies grounded in ‘property rules.’” Jacob M. Victor, “The EU General Data