المراجع | الخصوصية: مقدمة قصيرة جدًّا

الفصل الأول: الهجوم

“It was reported in early 2009 …”: Sunday Times, 4 January 2009.
“Free conversation is often characterized …”: L. B. Schwartz, “On Current Proposals to Legalize Wiretapping” (1954) 103 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 157, p. 162.
Examples of characteristics on which biometric technologies can be based: drawn from Roger Clarke, “Biometrics and Privacy”, http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/Biometrics.Html.
“[A] bit more invasive than a security guard …”: L. Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999), p. 194.
“Imagine if a hacker put together information …”: E. G. Lush, “How Cyber-Crime Became a Multi-Billion-Pound Industry”, The Spectator, 16 June 2007.
Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) Project: http://www.w3.org/P3P/.
“It is a complex and confusing protocol …”, and “Simple, predictable rules …”: Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), http://www.epic.org/reports/prettypoorprivacy.html.

الفصل الثاني: قيمة دائمة

My attempt to address the intractable problem of defining privacy draws on my serial endeavours to grasp this nettle; some of these works are listed in the section on “Further reading”.

“The closer people come …”: R. Sennett, The Fall of Public Man (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974), p. 338.
“In ancient feeling …”: H. Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 38.
“[L]iberalism may be said largely …”: S. Lukes, Individualism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1973), p. 62.
“One of the central goals …”: M. Horwitz, “The History of the Public/Private Distinction” (1982) 130 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1423, p. 1424.
“[T]he sole end …”: J. S. Mill, On Liberty (London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869), p. 9.
“On any given day …”: A. F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (New York: Atheneum, 1967), pp. 34-5.
“[A]n air of injured gentility”: H. Kalven, “Privacy in Tort Law: Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong?” (1966) 31 Law and Contemporary Problems 326, p. 329.
The “claim of individuals, groups …”: A. F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (New York: Atheneum, 1967), p. 7.
Privacy consists of “limited accessibility”: R. Gavison, “Privacy and the Limits of Law” (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal 412.
“To the extent that people conceal …”: R. Posner, “The Right of Privacy” (1978) 123 Georgia Law Review 393, p. 401.

الفصل الثالث: حق قانوني

Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 1H. & W. 1. 64 E.R. 293. On appeal: (1849) 1 Mac. & G. 25, 41 E.R. 1171.
S. D. Warren and L. D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy” (1890) 5 Harvard Law Review 196.
“Flour of the family”: Roberson v Rochester Folding Box Co. 171N.Y. 538; 64N.E. 442 (1902).
Supreme Court of Georgia: Pavesich v New England Life Insurance Co., 122 Ga. 190; 50S.E. 68 (1905).
W. L. Prosser, “Privacy” (1960) 48 California Law Review 383. Its moral basis as an aspect of human dignity: E. J. Bloustein, “Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser” (1964) 39 New York University Law Review 962.
H. Kalven, “Privacy in Tort Law: Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong?” (1966) 31 Law and Contemporary Problems 326.
Olmstead v United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
Katz v United States 398 U.S. 347 (1967).
Griswold v Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
“[U]ndoubtedly the best-known case …”: R. Dworkin, Life’s Dominion: An Argument about Abortion and Euthanasia (London: Harper Collins, 1993) pp. 4 and 103.
Bowers v Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Lawrence v Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Report of the Committee on Privacy (Chairman: K. Younger), Cmnd 5012 (1972) Para. 653.
Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2007] 2 W.L.R. 920 (H.L.).
Lord Hoffmann: Wainwright v Home Office [2003] U.K.H.L. 53, Para. 34.
The “final impetus to the recognition of a right of privacy …”: Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] 1 Q.B. 967 at para 111, per Sedley LJ.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63.
Hosking v Runting and Pacific Magazines NZ Ltd [2004] CA 101.
Gaskin v United Kingdom (1989) 12 E.H.H.R. 36.
Leander v Sweden (1987) 9 E.H.H.R. 443.
Katz v United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
“[T]he party to the conversation …”: Privacy, Australian Law Reform Commission No. 22, Para. 1128.
Klass v Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 E.H.H.R 214.
Malone v United Kingdom (1984) 7 E.H.R.R. 14.
“[N]ot because we wish to hamper …”: S. M. Beck, “Electronic Surveillance and the Administration of Criminal Justice” (1968) 46 Canadian Bar Review 643, p. 687.

الفصل الرابع: الخصوصية وحرية التعبير

Some of the discussion on the attempt to reconcile privacy and freedom of expression is based on my Privacy and Press Freedom (London: Blackstone, 1995).

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] 2A.C. 457 (H.L.).
Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2006] Q.B. 125; [2007] 2 W.L.R. 920 (H.L.).
Von Hannover v Germany [2004] E.M.L.R. 379 (E.C.H.R.).
Peck v United Kingdom [2003] E.M.L.R. 379 (E.C.H.R.).
Dietemann v Time, Inc. 449F. 2d 244 (1971).
T. L. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression (New York: Random House, 1970).
“[A]t most points the law …”: T. L. Emerson (above), p. 331.
“Privacy law might be more just …”: D. L. Zimmerman, “Requiem for a Heavyweight: A Farewell to Warren and Brandeis’s Privacy Tort” (1983) 68 Cornell Law Review 291, pp. 362–4.
“[A]nother approach, and one …”: T. L. Emerson, “The Right of Privacy and Freedom of the Press” (1979) 14 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 329, p. 343.
“[S]uffers from a failure …”: F. Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 56.
“[A] rigorous examination of motives …”: E. Barendt, Freedom of Speech, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 24.
“The principle of the freedom of speech …”: A. Meiklejohn, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965).
“The liberty of the press is indeed essential …”: W. Blackstone, 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769), pp. 151-2.
York Times v Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 at p. 270 per Brennan J (1964).
Time, Inc. v Hill 385 U.S. 374 (1967).
“[S]o long as the interest of privacy …”: T. Emerson, Towards a General Theory of the First Amendment (New York: Vintage, 1966), p. 75.
“It cannot be too strongly emphasised …”: R v Central Independent Television PLC [1994] Fam. 192 at p. 203 per Hoffmann LJ (as he then was).
“[E]xceptional cases, where the intended …”: Schering Chemicals Ltd v Falkman [1982] 1 Q.B. 1 at p. 18 per Lord Denning M.R.
“Blackstone was concerned to prevent …”: Schering (above), p. 39, per Lord Templeman.
“[A]t some point the public interest …”: Sidis v F-R Publishing Co. 34F. Supp. 19 (S.D.N.Y., 1938); 113F. 2d. 806 at p 809 (1940).
Restatement (Second) of the Law of Torts, §652D (b) and comment h.
Sipple v Chronicle Publishing Co. 201 Cal. Rptr 665 (1984).
Diaz v Oakland Tribune Inc. 118 Cal. Rptr 762 at p. 773 (1983).
Ann-Margret v High Society Magazine, Inc. 498F. Supp. 401 at p. 405 (1980).
“[D]eference to the judgment …”: D. L. Zimmerman, “Requiem for a Heavyweight: A Farewell to Warren and Brandeis’s Privacy Tort” (1983) 68 Cornell Law Review 291, p. 353.
Melvin v Reid 112 Cal. App. 285; 297P. 91 (1931).
Sidis v F.-R. Publishing Corporation Sidis v F-R Publishing Co. 34F. Supp. 19 (S.D.N.Y., 1938); 113F. 2d. 806.
Time, Inc. v Hill 385 U.S. 374, p. 388 (1967).

الفصل الخامس: حماية البيانات

I v Finland Eur. Ct. H.R., No. 20511/03 (17 July 2008).
Eastweek Publisher Ltd v The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data [2000] H.K.C. 692.

الفصل السادس: نهاية الخصوصية

L. Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999).
Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) Project: http://www.w3.org/P3P/.
Privacy Bird: http://www.privacybird.org.