Chapter 7 Case Problem Analysis: Privacy and Internet Law

Identifying the Facts and Issues

Under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, courts recognize a (reasonable / total / limited) right to privacy. In

order to show this right to privacy, a person must demonstrate that he possessed a(n) (actual / theoretical) and

(subjective / objective) expectation of privacy. A person must also demonstrate that (society / his lawyer / the court)

accepts the person's privacy expectation as reasonable. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution (does not /

does) apply to private businesses. However, judges use the (the reasonable expectation of privacy / special private

policy expectation) concept in many areas of privacy law.

In order to prove the tort of intrusion, a plaintiff must first show that a defendant (negligently / intentionally) intruded

on the solitude or (private / public) affairs of another person. This invasion of privacy must be done in a fashion that is

(a nuisance / offensive / annoying) to a reasonable person. In the employment context, courts have ruled that

employees (do / do not) possess a reasonable expectation of privacy (in their private life / in the workplace). This is

particularly true when hardware is supplied by the (employee / employer).

When Jason delivered flowers for FloralSend, Jasin was using a(n) (employer-owned / private owned) truck and a(n)

(employer-owned / private owned) cell phone. When FloralSend checked Jason's cell phone to monitor his

whereabouts, Jason's employer had a (justified / not justified) reason to do so. Jason (did not / did) have an actual,

subjective expectation of privacy on his work-provided phone. A judge would likely conclude that, if Jason claimed an

expectation of privacy on his work-provided phone, society would consider that expectation as (partially reasonable /

reasonable / unreasonable). As a result, Jason would probably (loser / win) a tort of intrusion claim against FloralSend

for monitoring his work phone.

When FloralSend's manager demanded access to Jason's Twitter account; that account was available (privately to

friends only / publicly to everyone). The manager (intentionally / negligently / recklessly) intruded on Jason's

(private / public) affairs. A manager reading Jason's private Twitter account could be considered (offensive / not

offensive) to a reasonable person. Jason had a(n) (reasonable / unreasonable) expectation of privacy in his private

Twitter account. As a result, Jason would probably (win / lose) a tort of intrusion claim against FloralSend for

demanding that Jason show his private Twitter account to his manager.

What IF the Facts Were Different?

What if Jason's Twitter account was publicly viewable? In this case, Jason's Twitter account is part of his (public /

private) affairs. Jason (does not / does) have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this account. A manager

demanding to see Jason's twitter account would be considered (not offensive / offensive) to a reasonable person. As

a result, Jason would probably (lose / win) a tort of intrusion claim against FloralSend for reading his public Twitter

account.