Information Roundup – 6 July 2008

Good morning.  Not many posts lately.  I’ve been busy, but have still been trolling for cases and haven’t found too much of interest.  Maybe this whole information and privacy thing is a fad;)

Here’s what I’ve read recently that you might enjoy.

• Neil Richards, “Intellectual Privacy.” Professor Richards argues that the United States’ First Amendment should protect “intellectual privacy” – “the ability to develop ideas and beliefs away from the unwanted gaze or interference of others.”  He shows that the First Amendment (with its protection of speech and the press) has for the most part been seen to be at odds with privacy protection, but that the core values underlying the First Amendment are not in conflict privacy protection when one considers the value of intellectual privacy.  This value, he further argues, is more threatened in recent times given the recording of our thought processes in databases owned by entities like Google.  He makes a simple, reasonable argument that resonates. (SSRN)
• Matt Richel, “What’s Obscene?  Google Could Have an Answer.” This is a news story about a criminal case in Florida and defence counsel’s plan to introduce evidence from Google Trends in support of an argument on “contemporary community standards.” Apparently people in Pensacola search the term “orgy” more than “apple pie” but less than “surfing.”  Go figure.  (New York Times)
• Anthony Lin, “Malpractice Suit Against Kay Scholer Alleges Discovery Foul-Ups.”  A news story.  The title speaks for itself.  (Law.com)
• Jordan Furlong, “Core competence:  6 new skills now required of lawyers.” This has nothing to do with information and privacy, but I think it’s quite smart.  (Law21)

Nicest weekend for weather this year here in Toronto.  I’m looking forward to a good paddle today, though am sure that dealing with the gong show at the beach will have me yearning for the solitude of winter on the water, 6mm mittens or not.

Enjoy!