About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

55 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 127 (2018)
Cybersurveillance Intrusions and an Evolving Katz Privacy Test

handle is hein.journals/amcrimlr55 and id is 133 raw text is: CYBERSURVEILLANCE INTRUSIONS AND AN EVOLVING KATZ PRIVACY TEST Margaret Hu* INTRODUCTION Cybersurveilliance intrusions necessitate a different Fourth Amendment test than the privacy test set forth by the Supreme Court in Katz v. United States' 50 years ago. As part of the Symposium, Katz at 50: The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age, this Article aims to illustrate why the transformation of Fourth Amendment doctrine is not only necessary with the increasing adoption of cybersurveillance technologies, but has already begun.2 Courts are increasingly confronted with the constitutional implications of mass surveillance made possible by big data governance.3 For example, suspicionless mass data collection, predic- * Associate Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law. I would like to extend my deep gratitude to those who graciously offered comments on this draft, or who offered perspectives and expertise on this research through our thoughtful discussions: Alvaro Bedoya, Andrew Christensen, Jennifer Daskal, Laura Donohue, Josh Fairfield, David Gray, Stephen Henderson, Rachel Levinson-Waldman, Erik Luna, Tim MacDon- nell, Russ Miller, Steve Miskinis, Paul Ohm, Christopher Slobogin, and apologies to anyone whom I might have omitted. In addition, this research benefited greatly from the discussions generated from the American Criminal Law Review 2017 Symposium: Katz at 50: The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age. Many thanks to the research assistance of Alexandra Klein, Kirby Kreider, and Bo Mahr. All errors and omissions are my own. This work is a companion piece to Margaret Hu, Orwell's 1984 and a Fourth Amendment Cybersurveillance Nonintrusion Test, 92 WASH. L. REV. 1819 (2018). 1. 389 U.S. 347 (1967). 2. See, e.g., Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014); United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012); Susan W. Brenner, The Fourth Amendment in an Era of Ubiquitous Technology, 75 Miss. L.J. 1 (2005); Laura K. Donohue, The Original Fourth Amendment, 83 U. CHI. L. REv. 1181 (2016); Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, The Internet of Things and the Fourth Amendment of Effects, 104 CAL. L. REV. 805 (2016); Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, The Smart Fourth Amendment, 102 CORNELL L. REv. 547 (2017); David Gray, Dangerous Dicta, 72 WASH. & LEE L. REv. 1181 (2015); David Gray & Danielle Citron, The Right to Quantitative Privacy, 98 MINN. L. REv. 62 (2013); Adam Gershowitz, The Post-Riley Search Warrant, 69 VAND. L. REV. 585 (2016); Orin S. Kerr, The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 111 MICH. L. REV. 311 (2012); Orin S. Kerr, Search Warrants in an Era ofDigital Evidence, 75 Miss. L.J. 85 (2005); Alex Kozinski & Eric S. Nguyen, Has Technology Killed the Fourth Amendment?, 2011-2012 CATO Sup. CT. REV. 15 (2011); Rachel Levinson-Waldman, Hiding in Plain Sight: A Fourth Amendment Framework for Analyzing Government Surveillance in Public, 66 EMORY L.J. 527 (2017); Christopher Slobogin, The World Without a Fourth Amendment, 38 UCLA L. REv. 1 (1991); Christopher Slobogin, Peeping Techno-Toms and the Fourth Amendment: Seeing Through Kyllo's Rules Governing Techno- logical Surveillance, 86 MINN. L. REv. 1393 (2002); Daniel J. Solove, Fourth Amendment Pragmatism, 51 B.C. L. REv. 1511 (2010); see infra Part III. 3. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013); ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015); Klayman v. Obama, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013), vacated, Obama v. Klayman, 800 F.3d 559 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Klayman v. Obama, 142 F. Supp. 3d 172 (D.D.C. 2015); see also Laura K. Donohue, Bulk Metadata Collection: Statutory and Constitutional Considerations, 37 HARV. J.L. & PUB. PoL'Y 757 (2014); Laura K. Donohue, Section 702 and the Collection of International Telephone and Internet Content, 38 HARV. J.L. & PUB. PoL'Y 117 (2015); Margaret Hu, Small Data Cybersurveillance v. Big Data Cybersurveillance, 42 PEPP. L. REv. 127

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most