Talk:Privacy laws of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2020 Comment[edit]

In privacy laws of the unite any one has right to talk to each other as you're in this page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahhaa (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Privacy v. Invasion of Privacy[edit]

This article, unhelpfully I think, conflates both the common law tort of "invasion of privacy"", which can be brought against private actors, and the "right to privacy" recognized in Griswold and by 4th Amendment doctrine. The "right to privacy" limits government agents (e.g. police) discretion in searching and limiting legislators (e.g. Congress) authority to pass laws that violate traditional norms of privacy (e.g. contraception, abortion, marriage). The "invasion of privacy" limits private (and government) actors. While I think this would be better off as two separate articles, it should at very least be two separate paragraphs. No? Maybe I'll try to figure it out, but I thought I'd post it into the discussion first. Rmauger 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the introductory section is unclear. What is the antecedent of "These" at the beginning the 4th sentence in the 2nd paragraph? It would appear to be a plural noun, but the only one in the preceding sentence is "damages." The 4th sentence says "These are" amendments to the Constitution, which are obviously not damages. jstewart57, 9:44 a.m., 17 July 2015 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstewart57 (talk • contribs)

PBS[edit]

PBS is not a suitable source of technical legal information. --McDogm 19:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Private Info Provided for a Fee - e.g., U.S. Search.com[edit]

How is it that online companies such as U.S.Search.com can invade one's privacy and provide personal invormation for a fee? Does anyone know? Does anyone know if there are lawsuits against such companies? --FitQueen

If I'm not mistaken, but I believe the "U.S.Search.com" company/concept falls under the same category as an "investigator". Anyone who has the money and is willing to pay, can request to search and do an investigation on a person. Also, take celebrities as an example, they are in the eyes of the public, and there's a ton of dirt on each one of them. I dont know if there are any legal and/or formal lawsuits for this, but as with anything else..... there's no stopping anyone from suing someone. I think that if you feel that you have been wronged and have your proofs, then take them to court and do something about it. Because only you have the power to stop it. I am sure that there are lots of celebrities who pay big money to keep their lives private. I would seek a lawyer who specializes in this area first before spending a dime. It really is quite interesting on the internet. It's amazing how much you can find out about a person, place, or thing.--Webmistress Diva 05:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is videotaping considered invasion of privacy for minors?[edit]

Scenario:

  • Teens under the age of 19 go to a weekly youth ministry
  • event ends at 9pm
  • curfew in the city is 10pm
  • kids are waiting for their parents to pick them up
  • church has been there for over 40 years.

The problem:

  • The tenants living in the apartments next door to the church has been videotaping the kids for the past 3-4 weeks.
  • Their complaining that the kids are too noisy when they get out of church.
  • Their solution.... videotape the activities of minors and innocent people minding their own business.
  • nosy tenant has only been there for a few months.

Interestingly, the cop showed up to tend to their complaint. I mentioned to the officer, "would you rather that these kids are out in the streets causing havoc"? He replied with "actually, it's job security, we want those kids in the streets". Joking or not, I thought it was inappropriate for him to say. I said the same thing to the man taping, and he just continued to yell at me, so I yelled back out of frustration because I couldn't get a word in.

As a parent, I feel that these nosy and cranky neighbors crossed the line when they videotape not only my children, but their friends and kids of the town, along with adults who are not aware that this is going on.

The kids was in no way disturbing the peace, because if that were the case, the other people who live around there would have been complaining way before these people. And this is no different from the local teen center, rec & park, and other facilities that these kids frequent every day. Why do these people feel like they can harrass a bunch of minors within the compounds of a holy church? Mind you, they feel that they are in their rights because they are videotaping on their property. Irregardless, that's my child and minors we are talking about, and they were not causing any problem.

Any input would be greatly helpful, as I have been up all night searching on the net. Most of the stuff is about a man videotaping police activities, and about another man videotaping his neighbors from his home and the neighbors are fed up, and something about the cops are paying this man to tape them.

Boy, there is no sense of privacy these days. People feel like they have to be all up in your business because they have no life and nothing better to do..... GEEEEEZ!

Thanks =) --Webmistress Diva 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. This page is for discussing the contents, sourcing and editing of the article. -- Donald Albury 22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
aahhh, yes, I know and understand. But it is a good point to make since it does not break down what truly is an "invasion of privacy". Because one can say that you are invading my privacy and the other will argue and say that they have their rights.

--Webmistress Diva 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I've had no legal training, but my understanding is that you have no 'right of privacy' for behavior in a public place. You do have an expectation of privacy in a rest room, locker room or dressing room, but if you are out on the street, then anyone can observe you, overhear your conversation, and make photographic, video and/or audio recordings of anything that is visible or audible to the general public. My advice is to talk to a lawyer to find out what you rights might be. -- Donald Albury 03:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Light[edit]

Ohio has not rejected False Light Invasion of Privacy, and has in fact adopted it in recent decision. 113 Ohio St.3d 464

Title[edit]

Maybe we an fix the problem of limited geographic scope by changing the title to "Privacy Laws in the United States". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Probatio Pennae (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was in my opinion the stark opposite of the right thing to do. We should be fixing the problem of limited geographic scope by adding information from other countries, not by renaming. The redirect from "invasion of privacy" makes this doubly troubling, as there are articles on invasion of privacy lawsuits in other countries (the UK, Canada, Australia) that now link to this article. --NellieBly (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though apparently too late. Rather than make this US centric and acknowledge it, we should attempt to give it more breadth and turn it back. And (as mentioned above) a "right of privacy" has little to do with an "invasion of privacy" so the redirect is even more meaningless. Maybe all of privacy law needs cleaned up. Rmauger 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly be appropriate if someone who has knowledge of this topic in other countries would share it here, but I'm not sure I see the point of lamenting about it. A similar lament is posted on the larger page for False Light, producing similar results. We are limited by what we know, but at least we might improve the discussion of that.

Because some of the law discussed here is common law, rather than statutory law, the title is somewhat misleading. Perhaps the singular "Privacy law in the United States" would be more appropriate?Dr. Perfessor (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False light proposal[edit]

The following material has been added to the article. Dr. Perfessor (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., the doctrine of false light holds that:

"One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in a reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed."[1]

For this wrong, money damages may be recovered from the first person by the other.

At first glance, this may appear to be similar to defamation (libel and slander), but the basis for the harm is different, and the remedy is different in two respects. First, unlike libel and slander, no showing of actual harm or damage to the plaintiff is usually required in false light cases, and the court will determine the amount of damages. Second, being a violation of a Constitutional right of privacy, there may be no applicable statute of limitations in some jurisdictions specifying a time limit within which period a claim must be filed.

Consequently, although it is infrequently invoked, in some cases false light may be a more attractive cause of action for plaintiffs than libel or slander, because the burden of proof may be less onerous.

What does "publicity" mean? A newspaper of general circulation (or comparable breadth) or as few as 3-5 people who know the person harmed? Neither defamation nor false light has ever required everyone in society be informed by a harmful act, but the scope of "publicity" is variable. In some jurisdictions, publicity "means that the matter is made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge."[2]

Moreover, the standards of behavior governing employees of government institutions subject to a state or national Administrative Procedure Act (as in the United States) are often more demanding than those governing employees of private or business institutions like newspapers. A person acting in an official capacity for a government agency may find that their statements are not indemnified by the principle of agency, leaving them personally liable for any damages.

If someone's reputation was portrayed in a false light during a personnel performance evaluation in a government agency or public university, for example, one might be wronged if only a small number initially learned of it, or if adverse recommendations were made to only a few superiors (by a peer committee to department chair, dean, dean's advisory committee, provost, president, etc.). Settled cases suggest false light may not be effective in private school personnel cases,[3] but they may be distinguishable from cases arising in public institutions.

References

  1. ^ Restatement 2d of Torts § 652E (1977)
  2. ^ Simmons, Jack H., Donald N. Zillman, and David D. Gregory (2004) Maine Tort Law. Newark: LexisNexis, citing Cole v. Chandler (Me. 2000) 104, 752 A.2d 1189, 1196.
  3. ^ Gautschi v. Maisel, 565 A.2d 1009 (Me. 1989)

GPS resource[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Privacy laws of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Privacy laws of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Privacy laws of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data Monetization[edit]

The monetization of data by social media has raised many new questions of data privacy in the United States, and I think the topic deserves its own section. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of HIPAA and GLBA[edit]

HIPAA And GLBA are monumental pieces of legislation that have impacted privacy laws alongside COPPA. However, they are not discussed in this article outside of their reference in the "Opt-Out" section of this article.

According to an article published by Comparitech, written by Amakiri Welekwe, as Technology Advisor and Cybersecurity Evangelist, The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is a federal law that was signed into effect on August 21st, 1996, which limited the freeflow of confidential health-related documents and information. It also limits what information can be gathered and held by healthcare providers.

On November 12, 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law. This statute made it mandatory for all financial institutions to protect and maintain the safety of all financial information that the institution may hold regarding an individual. It also limits the amount of information that financial institutions may gather from you and grants the right of opting-out of third-party data sharing.

This information needs to be included in the Wikipedia article to give the readers a better understanding of our current laws and what they do to protect us, as well as a better understanding of why they were put in place, to begin with.

https://www.comparitech.com/data-privacy-management/federal-state-data-privacy-laws/

Welekwe, Amakiri. “A Guide to the Federal and State Data Privacy Laws in the U.S.” Comparitech, comparitech, 18 July 2021, www.comparitech.com/data-privacy-management/federal-state-data-privacy-laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeatonShives (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC) KeatonShives (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of The Fair Credit Reporting Act[edit]

The Fair Credit Reporting Act was passed in 1970 and limited how agencies such as health agencies, tenant screens, and credit bureaus collect, store, and use your financial information.

I believe more information regarding this article should be included during the legislation tab because this act affected the collection and use of personal data and allotted certain rights to individuals.

I would like to include the following paragraph.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 implemented limitations on the information that could be collected, stored, and utilized by agencies such as credit bureaus, tenant screenings, and health agencies. The law also defined the rights granted to individuals in regards to their financial information including the right to obtain a credit score; the right to know what information is in your financial file; the right to know when your information is being accessed and used; and the right to dispute any inaccurate or incorrect information.

“Fair Credit Reporting Act.” Federal Trade Commission, 4 Mar. 2020, www.ftc.gov/enforcement/statutes/fair-credit-reporting-act.

KeatonShives (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy Policies[edit]

@Schazjmd: deleted a section on privacy policies, saying this article is about laws, and suggesting the Privacy Policy article. Maybe so. The GIJN source presumably took into account global usage. However that article refers here. Also some US laws do require privacy policies, including COPPA and CalOPPA. Gramm-Leach-Bliley and HIPAA require disclosure of uses, which effectively means a privacy policy. Maybe the Privacy Policy section here would be appropriate if it cited the laws which require it. Kim9988 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this article is US laws about privacy. You added categories of types of information that are generally covered by private organizations' privacy policies, which is a different article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Where are the green colors in the map? Aminabzz (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States&oldid=1220724734"