Adapting Bartnicki v. Vopper to a Changing Tech Landscape: Rebalancing Free Speech and Privacy in the Smartphone Age
![handle is hein.journals/wmbrts27 and id is 259 raw text is:
ADAPTING BARTNICKI V. VOPPER TO A CHANGING
TECH LANDSCAPE: REBALANCING FREE SPEECH
AND PRIVACY IN THE SMARTPHONE AGE
Andrew E. Levitt*
[A] principle, to be vital, must be capable of wider application than the
mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of constitutions.
-Weems v. United States1
INTRODUCTION ................................................. 250
1. THE PRINCIPAL CASE: BARTNJCKI v. VOPPER ......................... 253
RI. THE AVAILABILITY, UBIQUITY, AND VARIETY OF TECHNOLOGY HAS
CHANGED DRAMATICALLY SINCE BARTNiCK1, LEAVING PRIVATE
INFORMATION FAR MORE VULNERABLE ............................ : 257
A. Today There Are Far More Means and Opportunities to Capture
Private Communications and Information than Existed in 2001 ..... 257
B. Actual Instances of Compromise and Distribution of Private
Information Are Common .................................. 262
C. Breaches and Thefts Are Likely to Continue as New Software
Vulnerabilities Come to Light Regularly ....................... 265
D. Evidence Suggests the Public Generally Values Privacy Interests,
But That People Are Poor at Assessing Risk and Protecting
Them selves .............................................. 270
II. THE SUPREME COURT OFTEN REASSESSES ITS HOLDINGS AND PRINCIPLES AS
TECHNOLOGY EVOLVES ......................................... 271
IV. THE MASSIVE TECHNOSOCIAL CHANGE SINCE 2001 SPECIFICALLY
WARRANTS REVISITING BARTNICKI ............................... 278
A. The Government Already Imposes Lawful Restrictions on Certain
Disclosures of Truthful Information ........................... 278
B. The Law Can Protect Communication Privacy Interests in Certain
Limited Ways, Without Unduly Burdening Free Speech ........... 281
CONCLUSION ................................................... 284
* Student, William & Mary Law School Class of 2019. Many thanks to the William &
Mary Bill ofRights Journal editorial staff, and to Professor Paul Marcus, who may or may
not remember talking me out of an extremely far-fetched Note topic.
217 U.S. 349, 373 (1910).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/wmbrts27&div=11&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Adapting Bartnicki v. Vopper to a Changing Tech Landscape: Rebalancing Free Speech and Privacy in the Smartphone Age
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most