Prosser's Four Privacy Torts

Video Activity
Join over 3 million cybersecurity professionals advancing their career
Sign up with
or

Already have an account? Sign In »

Time
7 hours 2 minutes
Difficulty
Intermediate
CEU/CPE
7
Video Transcription
00:01
Hey everyone is chris again and I'm cyber is instructive for its US information privacy course
00:08
it's always a pleasure to be here with you to talk about important privacy topics and concepts.
00:15
We're going to close out module one looking at
00:19
William processors contributions to privacy law here in the United States, how he helped influence and shape the development of american law of toward privacy.
00:30
Before I can begin this discussion though, I have to give credit to the outstanding article written by Neil Richardson uh
00:39
daniel salada entitled processors privacy law, a mixed legacy, which is a fascinating article that looks at William Prosser, who was one of America's leading legal theories over his lifetime
00:56
up into his uh
00:58
Passing in 1972.
01:02
But it's a great article because it helps us as privacy professionals understand how privacy towards
01:10
evolved over time. We still see those here the challenges that are posed by the media, social media
01:18
um like we saw as we looked at um the
01:22
arctic or they'll say written by Warren and BRANDEIS,
01:26
you know, the truth of nature of the media, technological advances that created kind of privacy harms privacy invasions. And then the really high bar that's been set in courts in the United States, really for,
01:41
you know, plaintiffs to receive
01:44
um redress under the law.
01:48
Now we've seen that over time, the U. S. Government itself has passed rules,
01:53
regulations and laws in the case of the telemarketing sales rule,
01:57
um that's administered by the Federal Trade Commission
02:02
that lowers these bars that allows american citizens that have invasions and harms crossed by intrusion, constant luge in and
02:15
and by created by telemarketers, direct marketers themselves
02:20
into their lives. And so the ability to use that rule to address those privacy harms a little easier for american citizens than, you know, they find under other laws here in the United States.
02:34
Yeah,
02:36
yeah,
02:37
we have several learning objectives. We're gonna look at process views on privacy tort law
02:43
and then we're gonna have a brief discussion on those four privacy towards that. I want you to be familiar with as information privacy practitioners.
02:53
Just
02:54
so as I stated earlier, I encourage you to read Richard's and televisa essay or article published
03:04
um and available online. It was published in 2000 and 10, the California Law Review
03:10
that does an exceptional job of offering it balanced and objective analysis of William processors
03:17
contributions and impacts on
03:21
privacy tort law here in the United States.
03:24
It's critical at times, but again, I think that it offers a balanced view of that impact.
03:30
And while some of the challenges that we still face here
03:35
uh and american courts, when it comes to addressing privacy harms and privacy invasions under the law.
03:44
You know, William Prosser in 1960 published his landmark article entitled Privacy in the California Law Review.
03:53
And, you know, this is that article itself builds upon the
03:59
Warren and BRANDEIS article entire entitled The Right to privacy.
04:04
But he looks at privacy is it's devolved over those 50 or so years since the publication of that landmark essay,
04:14
and he looks at the impact of privacy
04:16
as it applies to
04:19
the protections under the law from privacy harms
04:23
privacy invasions.
04:25
Where Brandis, BRANDEIS and Warren looked at um shortfalls under common laws, they applied to privacy protections
04:34
and they really focuses on or proposed one privacy toward
04:40
its processor,
04:42
who expanded the scope of these privacy towards that privacy toward
04:46
two for privacy towards that are
04:49
widely viewed today.
04:53
Now, those four privacy towards our intrusion upon the plain of seclusion or solitude
04:59
went to his private affairs,
05:01
the public disclosure of embarrassing
05:03
private facts about the plaintiffs
05:06
publicity, which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye.
05:14
We talked about their defamation law,
05:16
casting someone in a false like
05:19
slander and libel.
05:23
And then the appropriation for the defender's advantage of the plaintiff's name or likeness uses someone's
05:30
image
05:32
or their name
05:35
for really for financial gain without consent.
05:41
Now,
05:42
although
05:43
these four privacy towards are attributed to William Prosser, he had concerns
05:51
here concerns that, you know, this additional focus on these privacy towards
05:57
might distract for tradition from traditional um common law, especially as it applied to defamation law.
06:08
And the courts themselves have looked the process work
06:11
continuously since the publication of
06:15
you know, this essay when considering
06:17
crimes, you were related court cases.
06:21
Again, I encourage you to read privacy.
06:26
I also encourage you to read Salafi in Richard's article.
06:31
It will give you greater insights into,
06:34
you know, processors intent
06:38
and the way of course they view
06:40
privacy towards.
06:43
We've seen that it's extremely difficult just like BRANDEIS and Warren stated in there? S a
06:49
for plaintiffs themselves to really fight to prove
06:53
privacy harms
06:55
tribes invasions unless we're talking about things like data breaches
07:00
that can provide some type of
07:03
tangible evidence that some love of harm has been caused.
07:09
Uh,
07:10
and results in a privacy invasion of privacy harm of the individuals
07:15
is still in american court. Today is a very high bar to attain,
07:20
you know, when trying to um
07:25
receive or or achieve redress under the law,
07:29
especially when it comes to the truth of nature of the media paparazzi,
07:33
social media publications of personal information and of the like advances in technology.
07:42
I hope you enjoyed our discussion.
07:46
As always, we're going to have a series of questions associated with each lesson.
07:53
This question asked, which landmark essay didn't cross her.
07:57
Published in the California Law Review in 1960. But you don't have to know the date.
08:03
Yeah.
08:05
The appropriate answer would be a
08:09
Mhm
08:09
question to ask which privacy toward addresses, defamation,
08:13
libel and slander
08:16
casting someone in a false light?
08:20
Yeah,
08:20
that would be seen.
08:22
Yeah.
08:26
Question three asked the question which privacy toward addresses using someone's likeness without consent?
08:37
The appropriate answer would be D
08:41
Yeah.
08:43
In summary.
08:46
No William processors work in his article entitled privacy really builds upon the work accomplished
08:54
Bye
08:56
BRANDEIS unworn in their landmark essay entitled The Right to privacy.
09:03
Now, although, you know, he expanded upon the scope of that S. A and he identifies
09:09
for privacy towards
09:11
we have to remember that processor also was extremely concerned about the impact of these privacy towards on existing law, specifically defamation law.
Up Next