When I wrote Omniveillance back in 2006-2007, I was very concerned with the notion of persistent, omnipresent surveillance everywhere. I chose to focus not on public surveillance, such as the ring of steel in London, but rather private surveillance implemented by companies like Google–focusing on their Google Street View cars. But one concept I could not grasp my head around was whether individuals could be conscripted into this virtual army. Cell phone cameras had already been on the market for some time at that point, and I wrote about how the snazzy new iPhone could geotag photos. Yet, I simply could not imagine that people would be able to walk around with their phones, and constantly record *everything.*
Well, now we have Google Glass. And I can see that happening very easily.
Nick Bilton has a thought-provoking article in the Times looking at how Glass, and other similar omniveillance tools, shake the way we think about privacy–and invariably the First Amendment–in public.
I’ve experienced both sides of this debate with Google’s Internet-connected glasses, Google Glass. Last year, after Google unveiled its wearable computer, I had a brief opportunity to test it and was awe-struck by the potential of this technology.
A few months later, at a work-related party, I saw several people wearing Glass, their cameras hovering above their eyes as we talked. I was startled by how much Glass invades people’s privacy, leaving them two choices: stare at a camera that is constantly staring back at them, or leave the room.
This is not just a Google issue. Other gadgets have plenty of privacy-invading potential. Memoto, a tiny, automatic camera that looks like a pin you can wear on a shirt, can snap two photos a minute and later upload it to an online service. The makers of the device boast that it comes with one year of free storage and call it “a searchable and shareable photographic memory.”
Apple is also working on wearable computing products, filing numerous patents for a “heads-up display” and camera. The company is also expected to release an iWatch later this year. And several other start-ups in Silicon Valley are building products that are designed to capture photos of people’s lives.
But what about people who don’t want to be recorded? Don’t they get a say?
What prompted me to first write Omniveillance was a question posed to my privacy law professor–is there anything to stop Google from recording people in Public? In other words, is there any privacy in public. The answer I got when something like this:
Deal with it, wearable computer advocates say. “When you’re in public, you’re in public. What happens in public, is the very definition of it,” said Jeff Jarvis, the author of the book “Public Parts” and a journalism professor at the City University of New York. “I don’t want you telling me that I can’t take pictures in public without your permission.”
There is a difference between a single photo taking snapshots, or even a video camera recording, versus an entire army of glass-wearing life-bloggers, recording everything, everywhere, instantly uploading it to the cloud. As I observed some years ago:
When these torts were developed, the level of invasion into an individual’s privacy was limited by photographers making a choice to photograph an individual at the opportunity cost of not photographing someone else. With new technology, the choice is no longer which individual to photograph, but which city to photograph in its entirety.
Over the summer, I will revisit Omniveillance in light of recent developments in technology. The title will be either “Omniveillance Reloaded” or “Omniveillance Redux.” Stay tuned.
The South Texas College of Law was in for a treat. Our commencement speaker was the Clerk of the United States, General William K. Suter. Kudos to Dean Don Guter for bringing Suter down. Last Friday, they held a conversation–“Suter and Guter.” Suter first came to South Texas in 1968 as a Captain to recruit for the JAG. He “snagged a few” from going into the Navy. It was very enlightening, as the General shared some fantastic stories.
How he was hired at the Court
He began by talking about his experience of applying to be the clerk of the Supreme Court. The most three important assets when applying for a job are “your friends, your friends, and your friends.” He was called in to interview with Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Scalia. His wife brought him to Nordstroms, to show him a a “wardrobe consultant.” When he arrived at Nordstroms, the consultant knew it was him. How? He was on time, and only military people are ever on time. Suter recalled that the consultant reminded him of Franck from “Father of the Bride.” He spent $6,000 on a suit that day. He went to interview with the three justices–O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy–and interviewed for an hour. Justice O’Connor, most senior, said thank you for coming today, noting “that’s a lovely suit.” O’Connor asked the Chief, “you know the real reason why he wants this job?” Rehnquist asked, “Why?” O’Connor said, “so he can continue his basketball career.” I fell into the job at the Court. The Chief bullied the other six into hiring him.
On Working at the Court
He noted that the Court is a wonderful place to work. “We thrive on two things–tradition and discipline.” We have a tradition, judges wear robes, people have titles, and you have discipline–you are supposed to do work and get it on time What does the Clerk of the Court do? In Brazil, the clerk of the Supreme Court is called the Secretary General. In Pennslyvania, it is the prothonotary (pronounced pra-tha-na-tary). Pro se plaintiffs who have their petitioners granted are given free transportation to and from the Court, including three meals!
On the Press
Suter: “Sometimes the press can be a little lazy.” I was surprised to none of the pro-se plaintiffs were given much attention. Geraldo was at Court on the day Bush v. Gore was argued. “He really has a big mustache.”
On The Supreme Court Bar
When you get the call from the Court that your petition was granted, the first thing you do is “faint.” We send you a care package. We advise you on your clothing. People from LA need help. We hold your hand through the entire process. There is one point of contact. We want you to be successful. After 1,700 arguments, I am so impressed with the legal profession. The quality of the briefs and arguments are top flight. The Justices are 5 feet from the lectern. They could reach out and place a writ of “habeas grabus” on you. Suter tells a story, where a Justice asked a lawyer what page in the appendix something was on. Seth Waxman slowly put the page under her nose so she could see it. “You will have a lot more fun if you consider your opponent your friend”
Who are the best advocates? Ken Starr, Seth Waxman, Ted Olson, Paul Clement (“you just gotta say, he’s good” and “he’s the nicest man you’ll ever meet” and “he’s a great American”). The best case I ever saw argued, I’ve seen 1700 total, was VMI case. Ted Olson argued for VMI. I told Ted, “that was the best case you ever argued.” Ted said, “I lost, 7-1.” He made a real case for it. The Second best case was on the losing said of Stolen Valor Act case, United States v. Alvarez. Verrilli did a fantastic job. After cases, Suter circles the sheet who he thinks is going to win.
Number one don’t. When you are arguing a case, and each has his/her arms folded, counting rosettes in ceiling. That’s a hint. They have finished. You should finish gracefully. Once a rookie was arguing, and there was no questions. Suter thought to himself, “Stop, you fool.” He stopped after 7 minutes. He won 9-0.
On Managing the Court
How has sequestration affected the Court? The Court is well managed. One line-item budget, total of $74 million a year. The lower courts, a total of $7 billion. The Supreme Court is not having trouble. About 85% of benefit is for salaries. We are very austere. We don’t blow money on things. We went through a ten-year renovation, it was done on time. We spend as little as we can. We want to be very independent, because we are an independent judiciary. Other than appointing new justice, and budget from Congress, we don’t really on outside for anything.
How are attorneys appointed? Circuit justice is responsible for finding lawyer, and rest of Justices agree. In Dickerson, the United States did not want to defend the judgment (it was Paul Cassel). THe Court appoints a lawyer to defend a judgment to show respect for that lower court. There’s no way to get on that list.
On the Justices
What Justice was the most impressive? “All 9 of them” One of the greatest Americans who ever lived was Louis Powell. He was too old to be drafted in WW II, but joined anyway. Served as intelligence officer in England, then worked in OSS. Served as head of ABA, worked to desegregate schools. Powell was asked twice to serve on SCOTUS, declined. Third time he was asked, he was told “Your country needs you again.” He was the most modest person. Just a plain, simple fellow, who did his job. He isn’t famous at all. He should be.
O’Connor continued to serve after death of CJ Rehnquist from September 2005-January 2006. The last day O’Connor sat, January 23, 2006 (case that dealt with bankruptcy and sovereign immunity), the vote was 5-4. O’Connor was in minority. All dissenters had to do was say “my opinion was not ready yet.” They could’ve held to reargue. They did not do that.
O’Connor wants to go fly-fishing in Wyoming in August!
The Court is misunderstood so often as a political entity. What difference does it make who appointed a Justice? 40% of opinions are unanimous. There is a lot of getting-along on the Court. They’re good friends They’re good professionals. They get things done.
Miscellaneous
Tough question about sexual assaults in military. We’ve had two wars going on. There are tensions in the commands. It’s tough. These are not movies. They make movies about war. They are plastic people from Hollywood. You have more women in the army. You have more women living together, cramped in places to live. You have sexual violence in colleges and universities. I am troubled by it. But I don’t think the quick fix is to pass some law. I say better training and education won’t always overcome what is going on. I’d love to have a military and society with no crime. It’s not going to happen. We work to try to make that happen, but it’s not possible. The way to fix it–swift and accurate trials, and punishment if warranted. I think it is troubling. I don’t think there is any quick fix.
Suter served with Elvis at basic training at Ft. Hood, Texas. There is a pic with both of them, with a”surly” curled-up lip. I may be only person who knows Colin Powell and Elvis Presley.
Question: What keeps you up at night? Nothing. I’ve been happily married for 54 years. I was a “hick from Kentucky” and she was a “glamorous woman from Texas.” Met at Trinity University in Texas, and were married. Two children, four grandchildren. She was a school teacher after 24 years, taught all over the world.
When I wake up on September 1, it will be the first time I’m unemployed in over 50 years.
I did not have anything to do with pick the successor–that gives appearance of hanging on.
Are you going to write a book? Maybe, but it won’t be the book you want to read. It would be incredibly boring, but will be filled with little stories. It won’t be like the Brethren. I would never violate a confidence. The other branches have offices that specialize in leaks.
Judicata, a startup based in Silicon Valley, is working on some serious next-level legal research tools. Their site is (intentionally) bare of any details, short of saying that they are trying to “map the legal genome.” What does that mean? They are converting judicial opinions into rules that computers can understand.
I had the privilege of visiting their headquarters recently, and saw a demo of their product. It is pretty cool. First, their algorithms can categorize and parse judicial opinions. The same way a 1L would highlight different portions of a case in different colors (Facts in pink, posture in blue, analysis in green, holding in purple, etc.), their program, with a pretty high accuracy, can automatically pluck out the different portions of an opinion–with minimal human intervention. From there, Judicata is able to extract different legal rules. With the data structure in a machine-readable way, instead of searching for keywords or headnotes, you can drill down based on the specific fact pattern and legal rule you are searching for. I hope that they post a demo sometime soon.
On Saturday, October 3, 1942, Hand visited the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, to record a couple of folk songs.3 He had been corresponding with Harold Spivacke, Chief of the Division of Music at the Library, since the springtime. Apparently, Hand had a version of a folk song (I do not know which, though some of the in-studio conversation points to “The Iron Merrimac”4) that interested Spivacke sufficiently to prompt an invitation. …
Hand was happy to oblige, and plans were made for a recording session in May. …. The result of Hand’s afternoon of recording at the Library was a pair of 16-inch lacquer-on-aluminum disks, each containing about 12 minutes of transcribed sound.
Read on for a great history.
But, Ross didn’t stop there. He dug up and digitized the entire-two sided record, and placed the tracks at his new cool site, Available at. Listen to all the tracks here.
Ross continues to reinvent and redefine legal scholarship. What a brilliant way to do it.
Here was my clip of the video from a few months ago:
