This Article responds to an argument made recently by Elizabeth Pollman that corporations should not be deemed to have “constitutional privacy rights” in “most circumstances.” Setting forth an alternative conception of organizational rights and examining different meanings of “privacy,” the Article contends that courts should tread more carefully and that it may often be sensible and recommended to allow corporations and other organizations to assert some constitutional “rights of privacy.” More specifically, the Article suggests that organizations may enjoy “primary” rights, which reside with the organizations in the first instance, or “secondary” rights, which are asserted by an organization to protect the underlying individual rights of members or participants in the organization. Several different meanings of privacy are also differentiated, including rights of “decisional privacy,” “informational privacy,” and “local privacy.” Given different organizational contexts, and different meanings of privacy, the Article concludes that no presumptions against rights of privacy for organizations are warranted in advance, and that a better course would be to recommend a deliberative and iterative development of legal standards and principles in different cases and circumstances as they arise.
Volume 99 - Issue 6
- Note: Stranger than Science Fiction: The Rise of A.I. Interrogation in the Dawn of Autonomous Robots and the Need for an Additional Protocol to the U.N. Convention Against Torture
- SIRI-OUSLY 2.0: What Artificial Intelligence Reveals About the First Amendment
- The Consequences of Disparate Policing: Evaluating Stop and Frisk as a Modality of Urban Policing
- Regulating Cumulative Risk
- Toward a Critical Race Theory of Evidence
© 2011-2016 Minnesota Law Review. All Rights Reserved.