Information Privacy Law

Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

Legal issues surrounding media reporting on individuals' lives.

A privacy tort involving unwanted intrusion into someone's private life.

Communication that harms someone's reputation by false statements.

Presenting someone in a false or misleading way to the public.

Secretly recording phone calls or other communications.

A standard for determining when individuals have a right to privacy.

If an individual voluntarily gives information to a third party, they have no legitimate expectation of privacy.

A US law that protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users. It states that platforms aren't responsible for the content users create, even if it's offensive.

Section 230 clarifies who's liable for harmful content on the internet. It says platform providers aren't publishers, so they aren't automatically responsible for user-generated content.

Requirement under Section 230 for online platforms to remove content. Though they aren't responsible for the content, if it's obviously unlawful, they must take it down in good faith.

Section 230 distinguishes between platforms as mere distributors and publishers. A distributor isn't liable for content, but a publisher is. Platforms are viewed as distributors under 230.

This court case was key in leading to Section 230. A computer network was held liable for content it didn't create, which lead to the need for a law to protect platforms.

The First Amendment protects speech disclosing illegally intercepted communications if the information is of public concern.

Publishing information of public concern is lawful even if obtained illegally by a third party.

Laws restricting speech about public concern must be content neutral, meaning they apply equally to all viewpoints.

To restrict speech as abusive, the defendant must have subjective intent to harm the recipient.

Defamation has four elements: (1) a false and defamatory statement presented as fact about another, (2) unprivileged publication to a third party, (3) fault amounting to at least negligence by the publisher, and (4) actionability irrespective of special harm.

Special harm refers to actual money loss or actual harm from defamatory statements.

Libel is written defamation, while slander is spoken defamation. Libel is presumed to cause harm, while slander requires proof of actual pecuniary harm, except for slander per se, which is presumed harmful.

Publication in defamation law means communication of the defamatory statement to someone other than the person defamed. It doesn't need to be widely disseminated, just to one other person.

The Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from liability for defamatory content posted by users.

A disseminator simply distributes defamatory content, while a publisher creates or repeats it. Disseminators have less liability than publishers.

Someone involved in a divorce case is generally NOT considered a public figure, even though the case is public record.

A person who voluntarily injects themselves into a public controversy to influence its outcome; they become a public figure only in relation to that controversy.

Determines if someone is a limited-purpose public figure: 1) Public Controversy exists, 2) Plaintiff is involved in it, 3) Defamation is related to their involvement.

The standard of proof required for a public figure to win a defamation case. It means the publisher knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The standard of proof for a private figure to win a defamation case, meaning the publisher acted carelessly or without reasonable care.

Four elements must be met for a false light claim: 1) Public matter about the person, 2) False portrayal, 3) Highly offensive to reasonable people, 4) Publisher knew it was false or acted recklessly.

False light cases can compensate for ONLY emotional distress, even without reputational harm. It's about the peace of mind.

You can't sue for both false light and defamation for the same event because they both address different types of harm.

False Light needs A LOT MORE publicity than just disclosing private facts. It's about a misleading portrayal.

An exception to a warrant requirement where a person freely allows law enforcement to search their property.

A person has the legal right to consent to a search of property they have joint access to or control over for most purposes.

When an officer reasonably believes, even if mistakenly, that a third party has the authority to consent to a search.

This case established that US courts cannot issue warrants under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) to seize data located on servers in foreign countries.

Respect for the laws and judicial decisions of other countries.

The rights and powers of a foreign nation to control its own territory and citizens.

The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty process, used for requesting legal assistance from foreign countries.

US courts cannot use an SCA warrant to force a service provider to collect data from foreign servers and 'import' it into the US.

The Wiretap Act's exclusionary rule applies to wire and oral communications, but not electronic communications. For stored communications and pen register acts, there's no exclusionary rule, but you can sue civilly.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) helps law enforcement by requiring telecommunication providers to make intercepting electronic communications easier. They get federal funding to do so.

CALEA doesn't apply to 'information services' such as email and internet access.

This act broadened the definition of terrorism and introduced sneak and peak warrants, allowing searches without immediate notice, usually in national security contexts. It also includes provisions regarding government disclosure of information.

The Wiretap Act covers interception of emails stored in transient electronic systems, meaning intercepting an email in such temporary storage is illegal.

Generally, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your email. But this can be affected by terms of service agreements.

The protection of email goes beyond the fact that it's stored by an ISP. It's also because emails often hold confidential information.

A 'super warrant' is the court order required under Section 2518 of the Wiretap Act. This provides additional protections beyond a typical warrant.