Most Influential Privacy Cases of the Decade

MOST INFLUENTIAL PRIVACY CASES OF THE DECADE INTRODUCTION Privacy is a DELICATE AND CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT, especially when the Fourth Amendment so broadly attempts to defend the American people from invasions of privacy. When faced with discrepancies, the courts will make rulings on these situations. However, some of the most difficult and contentious cases make it all the way to the Supreme Court. In this infographic you'll see three RECENT CASES that made a BIG SPLASH IN PRIVACY PROTECTION. UNITEID STATES V. JONES ANTOINE JONES is arrested after 28 DAYS OF BEING TRACKED by a GPS device on his vehicle WITHOUT A WARRANT [1] The FBI raided his jeep and found GUNS, $850,000 in cash and 97 KG OF COCAINE. [1] OCTOBER 2006 Jones was prosecuted on NUMEROUS CHARGES. [1] CHARGES THE JURY ACQUITTED him but could not reach a decision on his conspiracy charge. [1] CEES CHES He and his business partner, Lawrence Maynard, were both tried on a CONSPIRACY CHARGE. [1] JANUARY 2008 The jury in the second trial CONVICTED them both ON THE CHARGE. [1] CONVICTION OVERTURNED In his subsequent appeal, Jones stated that the placement of a GPS without a warrant VIOLATED HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. [1] HIS CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED by United States Court of Appeals. [1] THE SUPREME COURT was THE CASE asked by the United States prosecutors to REVIEW THE CASE AND THEY AGREED. [1] JANUARY 2012 They RULED UNANIMOUSLY that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to track the vehicle's movements constitutes a search UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND SO JONES' RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. [2] A FCC V. ATT AT&T discovered that they may have been OVERCHARGING for a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM designed to bring TECHNOLOGY TO SCHOOLS. [3] This resulted in a $500,000 SETTLEMENT WITH THE FEDS. [3] $500,000 COMPTEL, a group of AT&T competitors, DEMANDED to see all INVESTIGATION FILES. [3] The telecommunication giant said this will VIOLATE THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY under an PRIVACY exemption in the FREEDOM INFORMATION ACT. [3] The SUPREME COURT was set to DECIDE if CORPORATIONS HAD THE RIGHT TO "PERSONAL PRIVACY." [3] THE RİGHT During the hearing the FCC CLAIMED that CORPORATIONS have NEVER had THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY. [31 ASA PERSON Justice Alito says that sometimes they are REFERENCED IN THE LAW AS A PERSON. [3] NO PERSONAL PRIVACY The COURT ruled that CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY Uunder Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act. [3] NASA V. NELSON This case was a result of the implementation of NEW POLICIES stating that NASA EMPLOYEES working under contract must SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO IN-DEPTH BACKGROUND CHECKS. [4] EDUCATION • This includes BACKGROUND INFORMATION as it pertains to THEIR HISTORY OF: [4] EMPLOYMENT MILITARY RESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES • They are REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THREE REFERENCES [4] • DISCLOSURE of ILLEGAL DRUG USE [4] A DISTRICT COURT finds that THE SPACE ACT OF 1958 SUPPORTS DRUG TESTING. [4] O THE SPACE ACT ENABLED NASA to do what was necessary in the name of national security. [4] • During an appeal, the court found that the NOT COMPLY SEARCHES USED BY THE SPACE PROGRAM WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. [4] A PETITION WAS FILED that asked the Supreme Court for: A DEFINITION of what the INFORMATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS can be applied to • And CLARIFICATION on whether COLLECTING INFORMATION regarding counseling or treatment OF ILLEGAL DRUG USE WAS WITHIN THE LAW NASA HAS THE RIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT NASA HAS THE RIGHT TO PERFORM THESE TESTS and collect this information and these actions do not violate the individuals' right to informational privacy. 2 CONCLUSION History shows that IN MANY PRIVACY CASES THERE IS NO CLEAR-CUT ANSWER. It is apparent that this is a CONTROVERSIAL AREA OF LAW and opinions will continue to evolve with new Supreme Court justices and changes in technology and employment practices. SOURCES [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1259 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?pagewanted=all [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2011/01/reach_out_and_tou ch_someone.html [4] http://epic.org/amicus/nasavnelson/ MARCH 8, 2010 AUGUST 30, 2007 | 2004 OCTOBER 2005 JUNE 2011 MARCH 2007 | MARCH 2011 JANUARY 19, 2011 SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 MOST INFLUENTIAL PRIVACY CASES OF THE DECADE INTRODUCTION Privacy is a DELICATE AND CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT, especially when the Fourth Amendment so broadly attempts to defend the American people from invasions of privacy. When faced with discrepancies, the courts will make rulings on these situations. However, some of the most difficult and contentious cases make it all the way to the Supreme Court. In this infographic you'll see three RECENT CASES that made a BIG SPLASH IN PRIVACY PROTECTION. UNITEID STATES V. JONES ANTOINE JONES is arrested after 28 DAYS OF BEING TRACKED by a GPS device on his vehicle WITHOUT A WARRANT [1] The FBI raided his jeep and found GUNS, $850,000 in cash and 97 KG OF COCAINE. [1] ОСТОВER 2006 Jones was prosecuted on NUMEROUS CHARGES. [1] CHARGES THE JURY ACQUITTED him but could not reach a decision on his conspiracy charge. [1] CEES CHES He and his business partner, Lawrence Maynard, were both tried on a CONSPIRACY CHARGE. [1] JANUARY 2008 The jury in the second trial CONVICTED them both ON THE CHARGE. [1] CONVICTION OVERTURNED In his subsequent appeal, Jones stated that the placement of a GPS without a warrant VIOLATED HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. [1] HIS CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED by United States Court of Appeals. [1] THE SUPREME COURT was THE CASE asked by the United States prosecutors to REVIEW THE CASE AND THEY AGREED. [1] JANUARY 2012 They RULED UNANIMOUSLY that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to track the vehicle's movements constitutes a search UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND SO JONES' RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. [2] A FCC V. ATT AT&T discovered that they may have been OVERCHARGING for a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM designed to bring TECHNOLOGY TO SCHOOLS. [3] This resulted in a $500,000 SETTLEMENT WITH THE FEDS. [3] $500,000 COMPTEL, a group of AT&T competitors, DEMANDED to see all INVESTIGATION FILES. [3] The telecommunication giant said this will VIOLATE THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY under an PRIVACY exemption in the FREEDOM INFORMATION ACT. [3] The SUPREME COURT was set to DECIDE if CORPORATIONS HAD THE RIGHT TO "PERSONAL PRIVACY." [3] THE RİGHT During the hearing the FCC CLAIMED that CORPORATIONS have NEVER had THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY. [31 ASA PERSON Justice Alito says that sometimes they are REFERENCED IN THE LAW AS A PERSON. [3] NO PERSONAL PRIVACY The COURT ruled that CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY Uunder Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act. [3] NASA V. NELSON This case was a result of the implementation of NEW POLICIES stating that NASA EMPLOYEES working under contract must SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO IN-DEPTH BACKGROUND CHECKS. [4] EDUCATION • This includes BACKGROUND INFORMATION as it pertains to THEIR HISTORY OF: [4] ΕMPLOYMΕNT MILITARY RESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES • They are REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THREE REFERENCES [4] • DISCLOSURE of ILLEGAL DRUG USE [4] A DISTRICT COURT finds that THE SPACE ACT OF 1958 SUPPORTS DRUG TESTING. [4] O THE SPACE ACT ENABLED NASA to do what was necessary in the name of national security. [4] • During an appeal, the court found that the NOT COMPLY SEARCHES USED BY THE SPACE PROGRAM WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. [4] A PETITION WAS FILED that asked the Supreme Court for: A DEFINITION of what the INFORMATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS can be applied to • And CLARIFICATION on whether COLLECTING INFORMATION regarding counseling or treatment OF ILLEGAL DRUG USE WAS WITHIN THE LAW NASA HAS THE RIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT NASA HAS THE RIGHT TO PERFORM THESE TESTS and collect this information and these actions do not violate the individuals' right to informational privacy. 2 CONCLUSION History shows that IN MANY PRIVACY CASES THERE IS NO CLEAR-CUT ANSWER. It is apparent that this is a CONTROVERSIAL AREA OF LAW and opinions will continue to evolve with new Supreme Court justices and changes in technology and employment practices. SOURCES [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1259 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?pagewanted=all [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2011/01/reach_out_and_tou ch_someone.html [4] http://epic.org/amicus/nasavnelson/ MARCH 8, 2010 AUGUST 30, 2007 | 2004 OCTOBER 2005 JUNE 2011 MARCH 2007 | MARCH 2011 JANUARY 19, 2011 SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 MOST INFLUENTIAL PRIVACY CASES OF THE DECADE INTRODUCTION Privacy is a DELICATE AND CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT, especially when the Fourth Amendment so broadly attempts to defend the American people from invasions of privacy. When faced with discrepancies, the courts will make rulings on these situations. However, some of the most difficult and contentious cases make it all the way to the Supreme Court. In this infographic you'll see three RECENT CASES that made a BIG SPLASH IN PRIVACY PROTECTION. UNITEID STATES V. JONES ANTOINE JONES is arrested after 28 DAYS OF BEING TRACKED by a GPS device on his vehicle WITHOUT A WARRANT [1] The FBI raided his jeep and found GUNS, $850,000 in cash and 97 KG OF COCAINE. [1] ОСТОВER 2006 Jones was prosecuted on NUMEROUS CHARGES. [1] CHARGES THE JURY ACQUITTED him but could not reach a decision on his conspiracy charge. [1] CEES CHES He and his business partner, Lawrence Maynard, were both tried on a CONSPIRACY CHARGE. [1] JANUARY 2008 The jury in the second trial CONVICTED them both ON THE CHARGE. [1] CONVICTION OVERTURNED In his subsequent appeal, Jones stated that the placement of a GPS without a warrant VIOLATED HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. [1] HIS CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED by United States Court of Appeals. [1] THE SUPREME COURT was THE CASE asked by the United States prosecutors to REVIEW THE CASE AND THEY AGREED. [1] JANUARY 2012 They RULED UNANIMOUSLY that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to track the vehicle's movements constitutes a search UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND SO JONES' RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. [2] A FCC V. ATT AT&T discovered that they may have been OVERCHARGING for a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM designed to bring TECHNOLOGY TO SCHOOLS. [3] This resulted in a $500,000 SETTLEMENT WITH THE FEDS. [3] $500,000 COMPTEL, a group of AT&T competitors, DEMANDED to see all INVESTIGATION FILES. [3] The telecommunication giant said this will VIOLATE THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY under an PRIVACY exemption in the FREEDOM INFORMATION ACT. [3] The SUPREME COURT was set to DECIDE if CORPORATIONS HAD THE RIGHT TO "PERSONAL PRIVACY." [3] THE RİGHT During the hearing the FCC CLAIMED that CORPORATIONS have NEVER had THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY. [31 ASA PERSON Justice Alito says that sometimes they are REFERENCED IN THE LAW AS A PERSON. [3] NO PERSONAL PRIVACY The COURT ruled that CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY Uunder Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act. [3] NASA V. NELSON This case was a result of the implementation of NEW POLICIES stating that NASA EMPLOYEES working under contract must SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO IN-DEPTH BACKGROUND CHECKS. [4] EDUCATION • This includes BACKGROUND INFORMATION as it pertains to THEIR HISTORY OF: [4] ΕMPLOYMΕNT MILITARY RESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES • They are REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THREE REFERENCES [4] • DISCLOSURE of ILLEGAL DRUG USE [4] A DISTRICT COURT finds that THE SPACE ACT OF 1958 SUPPORTS DRUG TESTING. [4] O THE SPACE ACT ENABLED NASA to do what was necessary in the name of national security. [4] • During an appeal, the court found that the NOT COMPLY SEARCHES USED BY THE SPACE PROGRAM WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. [4] A PETITION WAS FILED that asked the Supreme Court for: A DEFINITION of what the INFORMATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS can be applied to • And CLARIFICATION on whether COLLECTING INFORMATION regarding counseling or treatment OF ILLEGAL DRUG USE WAS WITHIN THE LAW NASA HAS THE RIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT NASA HAS THE RIGHT TO PERFORM THESE TESTS and collect this information and these actions do not violate the individuals' right to informational privacy. 2 CONCLUSION History shows that IN MANY PRIVACY CASES THERE IS NO CLEAR-CUT ANSWER. It is apparent that this is a CONTROVERSIAL AREA OF LAW and opinions will continue to evolve with new Supreme Court justices and changes in technology and employment practices. SOURCES [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1259 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?pagewanted=all [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2011/01/reach_out_and_tou ch_someone.html [4] http://epic.org/amicus/nasavnelson/ MARCH 8, 2010 AUGUST 30, 2007 | 2004 OCTOBER 2005 JUNE 2011 MARCH 2007 | MARCH 2011 JANUARY 19, 2011 SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 MOST INFLUENTIAL PRIVACY CASES OF THE DECADE INTRODUCTION Privacy is a DELICATE AND CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT, especially when the Fourth Amendment so broadly attempts to defend the American people from invasions of privacy. When faced with discrepancies, the courts will make rulings on these situations. However, some of the most difficult and contentious cases make it all the way to the Supreme Court. In this infographic you'll see three RECENT CASES that made a BIG SPLASH IN PRIVACY PROTECTION. UNITEID STATES V. JONES ANTOINE JONES is arrested after 28 DAYS OF BEING TRACKED by a GPS device on his vehicle WITHOUT A WARRANT [1] The FBI raided his jeep and found GUNS, $850,000 in cash and 97 KG OF COCAINE. [1] ОСТОВER 2006 Jones was prosecuted on NUMEROUS CHARGES. [1] CHARGES THE JURY ACQUITTED him but could not reach a decision on his conspiracy charge. [1] CEES CHES He and his business partner, Lawrence Maynard, were both tried on a CONSPIRACY CHARGE. [1] JANUARY 2008 The jury in the second trial CONVICTED them both ON THE CHARGE. [1] CONVICTION OVERTURNED In his subsequent appeal, Jones stated that the placement of a GPS without a warrant VIOLATED HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. [1] HIS CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED by United States Court of Appeals. [1] THE SUPREME COURT was THE CASE asked by the United States prosecutors to REVIEW THE CASE AND THEY AGREED. [1] JANUARY 2012 They RULED UNANIMOUSLY that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to track the vehicle's movements constitutes a search UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND SO JONES' RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. [2] A FCC V. ATT AT&T discovered that they may have been OVERCHARGING for a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM designed to bring TECHNOLOGY TO SCHOOLS. [3] This resulted in a $500,000 SETTLEMENT WITH THE FEDS. [3] $500,000 COMPTEL, a group of AT&T competitors, DEMANDED to see all INVESTIGATION FILES. [3] The telecommunication giant said this will VIOLATE THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY under an PRIVACY exemption in the FREEDOM INFORMATION ACT. [3] The SUPREME COURT was set to DECIDE if CORPORATIONS HAD THE RIGHT TO "PERSONAL PRIVACY." [3] THE RİGHT During the hearing the FCC CLAIMED that CORPORATIONS have NEVER had THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY. [31 ASA PERSON Justice Alito says that sometimes they are REFERENCED IN THE LAW AS A PERSON. [3] NO PERSONAL PRIVACY The COURT ruled that CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY Uunder Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act. [3] NASA V. NELSON This case was a result of the implementation of NEW POLICIES stating that NASA EMPLOYEES working under contract must SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO IN-DEPTH BACKGROUND CHECKS. [4] EDUCATION • This includes BACKGROUND INFORMATION as it pertains to THEIR HISTORY OF: [4] ΕMPLOYMΕNT MILITARY RESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES • They are REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THREE REFERENCES [4] • DISCLOSURE of ILLEGAL DRUG USE [4] A DISTRICT COURT finds that THE SPACE ACT OF 1958 SUPPORTS DRUG TESTING. [4] O THE SPACE ACT ENABLED NASA to do what was necessary in the name of national security. [4] • During an appeal, the court found that the NOT COMPLY SEARCHES USED BY THE SPACE PROGRAM WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. [4] A PETITION WAS FILED that asked the Supreme Court for: A DEFINITION of what the INFORMATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS can be applied to • And CLARIFICATION on whether COLLECTING INFORMATION regarding counseling or treatment OF ILLEGAL DRUG USE WAS WITHIN THE LAW NASA HAS THE RIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT NASA HAS THE RIGHT TO PERFORM THESE TESTS and collect this information and these actions do not violate the individuals' right to informational privacy. 2 CONCLUSION History shows that IN MANY PRIVACY CASES THERE IS NO CLEAR-CUT ANSWER. It is apparent that this is a CONTROVERSIAL AREA OF LAW and opinions will continue to evolve with new Supreme Court justices and changes in technology and employment practices. SOURCES [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1259 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?pagewanted=all [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2011/01/reach_out_and_tou ch_someone.html [4] http://epic.org/amicus/nasavnelson/ MARCH 8, 2010 AUGUST 30, 2007 | 2004 OCTOBER 2005 JUNE 2011 MARCH 2007 | MARCH 2011 JANUARY 19, 2011 SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 MOST INFLUENTIAL PRIVACY CASES OF THE DECADE INTRODUCTION Privacy is a DELICATE AND CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT, especially when the Fourth Amendment so broadly attempts to defend the American people from invasions of privacy. When faced with discrepancies, the courts will make rulings on these situations. However, some of the most difficult and contentious cases make it all the way to the Supreme Court. In this infographic you'll see three RECENT CASES that made a BIG SPLASH IN PRIVACY PROTECTION. UNITEID STATES V. JONES ANTOINE JONES is arrested after 28 DAYS OF BEING TRACKED by a GPS device on his vehicle WITHOUT A WARRANT [1] The FBI raided his jeep and found GUNS, $850,000 in cash and 97 KG OF COCAINE. [1] ОСТОВER 2006 Jones was prosecuted on NUMEROUS CHARGES. [1] CHARGES THE JURY ACQUITTED him but could not reach a decision on his conspiracy charge. [1] CEES CHES He and his business partner, Lawrence Maynard, were both tried on a CONSPIRACY CHARGE. [1] JANUARY 2008 The jury in the second trial CONVICTED them both ON THE CHARGE. [1] CONVICTION OVERTURNED In his subsequent appeal, Jones stated that the placement of a GPS without a warrant VIOLATED HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. [1] HIS CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED by United States Court of Appeals. [1] THE SUPREME COURT was THE CASE asked by the United States prosecutors to REVIEW THE CASE AND THEY AGREED. [1] JANUARY 2012 They RULED UNANIMOUSLY that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to track the vehicle's movements constitutes a search UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND SO JONES' RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. [2] A FCC V. ATT AT&T discovered that they may have been OVERCHARGING for a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM designed to bring TECHNOLOGY TO SCHOOLS. [3] This resulted in a $500,000 SETTLEMENT WITH THE FEDS. [3] $500,000 COMPTEL, a group of AT&T competitors, DEMANDED to see all INVESTIGATION FILES. [3] The telecommunication giant said this will VIOLATE THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY under an PRIVACY exemption in the FREEDOM INFORMATION ACT. [3] The SUPREME COURT was set to DECIDE if CORPORATIONS HAD THE RIGHT TO "PERSONAL PRIVACY." [3] THE RİGHT During the hearing the FCC CLAIMED that CORPORATIONS have NEVER had THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY. [31 ASA PERSON Justice Alito says that sometimes they are REFERENCED IN THE LAW AS A PERSON. [3] NO PERSONAL PRIVACY The COURT ruled that CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY Uunder Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act. [3] NASA V. NELSON This case was a result of the implementation of NEW POLICIES stating that NASA EMPLOYEES working under contract must SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO IN-DEPTH BACKGROUND CHECKS. [4] EDUCATION • This includes BACKGROUND INFORMATION as it pertains to THEIR HISTORY OF: [4] ΕMPLOYMΕNT MILITARY RESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES • They are REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THREE REFERENCES [4] • DISCLOSURE of ILLEGAL DRUG USE [4] A DISTRICT COURT finds that THE SPACE ACT OF 1958 SUPPORTS DRUG TESTING. [4] O THE SPACE ACT ENABLED NASA to do what was necessary in the name of national security. [4] • During an appeal, the court found that the NOT COMPLY SEARCHES USED BY THE SPACE PROGRAM WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. [4] A PETITION WAS FILED that asked the Supreme Court for: A DEFINITION of what the INFORMATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS can be applied to • And CLARIFICATION on whether COLLECTING INFORMATION regarding counseling or treatment OF ILLEGAL DRUG USE WAS WITHIN THE LAW NASA HAS THE RIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT NASA HAS THE RIGHT TO PERFORM THESE TESTS and collect this information and these actions do not violate the individuals' right to informational privacy. 2 CONCLUSION History shows that IN MANY PRIVACY CASES THERE IS NO CLEAR-CUT ANSWER. It is apparent that this is a CONTROVERSIAL AREA OF LAW and opinions will continue to evolve with new Supreme Court justices and changes in technology and employment practices. SOURCES [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1259 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?pagewanted=all [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2011/01/reach_out_and_tou ch_someone.html [4] http://epic.org/amicus/nasavnelson/ MARCH 8, 2010 AUGUST 30, 2007 | 2004 OCTOBER 2005 JUNE 2011 MARCH 2007 | MARCH 2011 JANUARY 19, 2011 SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 MOST INFLUENTIAL PRIVACY CASES OF THE DECADE INTRODUCTION Privacy is a DELICATE AND CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT, especially when the Fourth Amendment so broadly attempts to defend the American people from invasions of privacy. When faced with discrepancies, the courts will make rulings on these situations. However, some of the most difficult and contentious cases make it all the way to the Supreme Court. In this infographic you'll see three RECENT CASES that made a BIG SPLASH IN PRIVACY PROTECTION. UNITEID STATES V. JONES ANTOINE JONES is arrested after 28 DAYS OF BEING TRACKED by a GPS device on his vehicle WITHOUT A WARRANT [1] The FBI raided his jeep and found GUNS, $850,000 in cash and 97 KG OF COCAINE. [1] ОСТОВER 2006 Jones was prosecuted on NUMEROUS CHARGES. [1] CHARGES THE JURY ACQUITTED him but could not reach a decision on his conspiracy charge. [1] CEES CHES He and his business partner, Lawrence Maynard, were both tried on a CONSPIRACY CHARGE. [1] JANUARY 2008 The jury in the second trial CONVICTED them both ON THE CHARGE. [1] CONVICTION OVERTURNED In his subsequent appeal, Jones stated that the placement of a GPS without a warrant VIOLATED HIS FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. [1] HIS CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED by United States Court of Appeals. [1] THE SUPREME COURT was THE CASE asked by the United States prosecutors to REVIEW THE CASE AND THEY AGREED. [1] JANUARY 2012 They RULED UNANIMOUSLY that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to track the vehicle's movements constitutes a search UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND SO JONES' RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. [2] A FCC V. ATT AT&T discovered that they may have been OVERCHARGING for a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM designed to bring TECHNOLOGY TO SCHOOLS. [3] This resulted in a $500,000 SETTLEMENT WITH THE FEDS. [3] $500,000 COMPTEL, a group of AT&T competitors, DEMANDED to see all INVESTIGATION FILES. [3] The telecommunication giant said this will VIOLATE THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY under an PRIVACY exemption in the FREEDOM INFORMATION ACT. [3] The SUPREME COURT was set to DECIDE if CORPORATIONS HAD THE RIGHT TO "PERSONAL PRIVACY." [3] THE RİGHT During the hearing the FCC CLAIMED that CORPORATIONS have NEVER had THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY. [31 ASA PERSON Justice Alito says that sometimes they are REFERENCED IN THE LAW AS A PERSON. [3] NO PERSONAL PRIVACY The COURT ruled that CORPORATIONS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL PRIVACY Uunder Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act. [3] NASA V. NELSON This case was a result of the implementation of NEW POLICIES stating that NASA EMPLOYEES working under contract must SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO IN-DEPTH BACKGROUND CHECKS. [4] EDUCATION • This includes BACKGROUND INFORMATION as it pertains to THEIR HISTORY OF: [4] ΕMPLOYMΕNT MILITARY RESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES • They are REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THREE REFERENCES [4] • DISCLOSURE of ILLEGAL DRUG USE [4] A DISTRICT COURT finds that THE SPACE ACT OF 1958 SUPPORTS DRUG TESTING. [4] O THE SPACE ACT ENABLED NASA to do what was necessary in the name of national security. [4] • During an appeal, the court found that the NOT COMPLY SEARCHES USED BY THE SPACE PROGRAM WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. [4] A PETITION WAS FILED that asked the Supreme Court for: A DEFINITION of what the INFORMATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS can be applied to • And CLARIFICATION on whether COLLECTING INFORMATION regarding counseling or treatment OF ILLEGAL DRUG USE WAS WITHIN THE LAW NASA HAS THE RIGHT THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT NASA HAS THE RIGHT TO PERFORM THESE TESTS and collect this information and these actions do not violate the individuals' right to informational privacy. 2 CONCLUSION History shows that IN MANY PRIVACY CASES THERE IS NO CLEAR-CUT ANSWER. It is apparent that this is a CONTROVERSIAL AREA OF LAW and opinions will continue to evolve with new Supreme Court justices and changes in technology and employment practices. SOURCES [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1259 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?pagewanted=all [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2011/01/reach_out_and_tou ch_someone.html [4] http://epic.org/amicus/nasavnelson/ MARCH 8, 2010 AUGUST 30, 2007 | 2004 OCTOBER 2005 JUNE 2011 MARCH 2007 | MARCH 2011 JANUARY 19, 2011 SEPTEMBER 24, 2007