Annotated Bibliography

Hello! For the annotated bibliography I didn't need to include any new sources as I have been able to find quite a bit of research and opinions on my research question. That question is: Does the constitution guarantee the right to privacy. I have been able to find quite a bit material regarding that question. Surprisingly, from places as far afield as Australia and the UK. A couple of challenges were had in the variety of search tools we've used throughout the class. The most useful for me have been the reference books and the academic journals. The reference books as my of the arguments and briefs for specific Constitutional cases are found there. The academic journals have been especially useful for being able to pull from a variety of law reviews that deal with many of these questions all the time.
In another time and place, in perhaps another constitutional class, of which I think there is one more for my major, I'd like to explore some of this particular issue again. To be honest, this could probably qualify for consideration of being a masters thesis.For a wider audience, writing about and pointing out the amount of information and the specifics of that information and how it is being used would be quite useful for people to know. It would be especially useful to know how they can protect the bits of information that let get out into the world or to commercial interests or our own government. I think there is a wealth of information that could still yet be gleaned to give people those tools and increase their knowledge. The sources come from all angles and all manner of disciplines. From medical and psychological information to businesses and hobbies and other pastimes, the amount of data people give out is staggering. It is even more astounding that people are unknowingly doing it without really realizing it.

My research question: Does the Constitution guarantee the right to privacy?

The Right to Privacy in the United States Constitution: An Annotated Bibliography

Charles McCall

Brandman University

Eyre, W. (2011). The real ID act : Privacy and government surveillance. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

This article is a good example of the more modern problems in keeping one's private life private. It details some of the methods used to gather information from ones viewing or web surfing habits. This is quite often without the person's real knowledge of that they are giving away all of this valuable information. Many legal questions are brought up to whether or not people really know that this information is being given away. The article raises the question that one is paying for a particular service, and often at a premium price, and they having information gathered about themselves without really being specifically told they are having that happen. For my research question of: Does the Constitution protect one's right to privacy?, I find that in spite of various laws enacted to protect peoples information, many companies don't limit what information they gather, nor protect it very well despite the assurances given in their licensing or use agreements. And on top of all of that, the government is either busy looking in on that traffic or can, more or less at a moments notice, access that data with impunity.

Goldman, L. (2006). The constitutional right to privacy. Denver University Law Review, 84(2), 601-644

A review of cases, and more importantly, the legal reasoning behind some of the decisions made in those cases. It really discusses, at length, the differing approaches in legal theory on the decisions were made. Much of this is based on the opinions issued by the Supreme Court when the cases were decided. This is an excellent source as it speaks to the two schools of thought regarding how rights cases are framed and decided.

Hamilton, A. (1788) The Federalist Papers, #84 retrieved from:

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-84

In a number of my sources, one of the basis for rendering decisions id what is called 'original intent'.

That means that sometimes a particular point of law is not specific to the legal question being raised, so there is an attempt at determining the original intention of the law to see if it applies to the question. All

of the Federalist Papers are viewed as primary sources for the intentions of the framers of the constitution as they were all written by the primary authors, James Madison, John Jay, anad Alexander Hamilton. Paper number 84 is immensely important in my research as it concerns whether or not to include a bill of rights to the constitution. Their take was that the it didn't need to include one as the government described did not have the power to grant nor take away rights as it was felt they were inherent.

Lounsbury, D. W., Reynolds, T. C., & Rapkin, B. D. (2007). Protecting the privacy of third-party information: Recommendations for social and behavioral health researchers. Social Science & Medicine, 64(1), 213-222. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.035

This particular article was somewhat of a surprising find. I found when I first pulled the article that it didn't really fit into either my research question nor my thesis statement as it really has nothing to do the constitutionality of privacy. However, as I mulled through the article even more, I found that social and behavioral research can and will likely include peoples private information even when they aren't necessarily the subject of said research. The corollary to this is information gathered from one person can, and could very likely, include personal, private information about any number of other people at the same time. For example, in keeping with this angle of behavioral research, a person uses their phone to pull up information about sexually transmitted diseases, but they are doing so while talking to their partner at their partners house but using their friends internet connection. In this way, it could be inferred that perhaps the friend was looking up this information. It could even be that the person talking about STDs is just at a good friends house that isn't involved. There is still that association should someone being 'listening in' on that internet connection.

Rubenfeld, J. (1989). The right of privacy. Harvard Law Review, 102(4), 737

A more exacting look at the nuances of the legal decisions involving privacy decisions in the Supreme Court. This takes it a step further in describing the central tenet in rights and privacy rights in particular is one of 'personhood'. This means that rights one expresses to express their personhood. In this vein, many of the cases before the Supreme Court detailing privacy have been about one's privacy of sexuality and expressing it. It details the Connecticut case involving contraception all the way through homosexual lovers being cought in the act while in private homes. That people were charged with crimes for expressing sexual feelings is where these cases come up. This was a thoroughly useful source as it dealt with not only my particular cases where the privacy issue was brought up, but also with concepts andsome of the traditions that have typically been used to frame privacy issues before the courts.

Umphrey, M. M., Douglas, L., & Sarat, A. (2012). Imagining new legalities : Privacy and its possibilities in the 21st century. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.

A collection of essays that keeps some of the more legal jargon out of the arguments about privacy. While only a couple of specific essays deal with privacy in a constitutional context, the general arguments abound about what privacy means from the personal point of view. It asks the question of how much people share online, and with strangers they meet or deal with in public spaces, or when dealing with people in business cases, whether private or with the government. In these contexts it asks what a persons expectation of privacy is versus what is a reasonable expectation of privacy and how they are different. This is quite useful in my research as many times in court cases the central question asked is whether or not someone who is fighting a charge first had a right to keep whatever they were doing private, and secondly, is it the governments responsibility or duty to intrude into the life of that private citizen? Is there a vested governmental interest in knowing who you are having sex with? IS there an interest in who you are talking or texting with in order to have sex with them or to find out what the latest score is of the game they are watching?