On the Internet, obscure information has a minimal risk of being discovered or understood by unintended recipients. Empirical research demonstrates that Internet users rely on obscurity perhaps more than anything else to protect their privacy. Yet, online obscurity has been largely ignored by courts and lawmakers. In this Article, we argue that obscurity is a critical component of online privacy, but it has not been embraced by courts and lawmakers because it has never been adequately defined or conceptualized. This lack of definition has resulted in the concept of online obscurity being too insubstantial to serve as a helpful guide in privacy disputes. In its place, courts and lawmakers have generally found that the unfettered ability of any hypothetical individual to find and access information on the Internet renders that information public, and therefore ineligible for privacy protection. Drawing from multiple disciplines, this Article develops a more focused, clear, and workable definition of online obscurity: information is obscure online if it lacks one or more key factors that are essential to discovery or comprehension. We have identified four of these factors: (1) search visibility, (2) unprotected access, (3) identification, and (4) clarity. This framework could be applied as an analytical tool or as part of an obligation. Viewing obscurity as a continuum could help courts and lawmakers determine if information is eligible for privacy protections. Obscurity could also serve as a compromise protective remedy: instead of forcing websites to remove sensitive information, courts could mandate some form of obscurity. Finally, obscurity could form part of an agreement where Internet users bound to a "duty to maintain obscurity" would be allowed to further disclose information so long as they kept the information generally as obscure as they received it.
The Case for Online Obscurity
|
VIEW PDF
Circuit: Archived Content
RECENT POSTS
Drone Federalism: Civilian Drones and the Things They Carry
- Margot E. KaminskiBook Review of The Laws of Spaceflight: A Guidebook for New Space Lawyers
- Glenn Harlan ReynoldsThe Twenty-First Century Fingerprint: Previewing Maryland v. King
- Keagan D. BuchananRace, Descent, and Tribal Citizenship
- Bethany R. BergerBY DATE
- June 2013 (1)
- May 2013 (2)
- April 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (1)
- September 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (1)
BY CATEGORY
- 2011 Jorde Symposium (5)
- 2012 AALS Section on Law and Humanities Program (9)
- banquet (1)
- birth control (1)
- california supreme court (1)
- chesney (1)
- cole (1)
- constitutional democracy (1)
- consumer protection (1)
- Crime (1)
- Deportation (1)
- detention (1)
- dodd-frank (1)
- domestic violence (1)
- elkins (1)
- family (1)
- fourth amendment (1)
- Germany (1)
- Independence (1)
- information behavior (1)
- intersex (1)
- John Yoo (1)
- judicial restraint (6)
- law schools (1)
- partisanship (1)
- party politics (1)
- popular democracy (1)
- Privacy (2)
- Professionalism (1)
- Prosser (1)
- Prosser Symposium (1)
- Punishment (1)
- sterilization (1)
- Tort (1)
- Torture (1)
- war powers (1)
- Yoo (1)
- zelon (1)
NEWS & EVENTS
SYMPOSIA
META
The California Law Review is the preeminent legal publication at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
Founded in 1912, CLR publishes six times per year on a variety of engaging topics in legal scholarship.
The law review is edited and published entirely by students at Berkeley Law.
Founded in 1912, CLR publishes six times per year on a variety of engaging topics in legal scholarship.
The law review is edited and published entirely by students at Berkeley Law.