Conceptions, conflicts. Theres interesting details and stories in the short papers people have produced. Aswant this to be as far caught possible, a conversation. That a littlets bit because they would like us to be in a row rather than in the community. [laughter] but we will take questions and conversation, and try to produce , as well as some information. Unfortunately, one of the speakers, leeann wheeler, could theto get here because of air Traffic Control issues of yesterday. So, and he shall get over here from bowling green, university, whose friend is going to chat and wheeler. When you see in the shock its can and wheeler. Very grateful for him. I will quickly introduce the speakers. Then, they will each give small talks. Then im going to do a short, did we will open it up to conversation. We and wheeler who i will introduce, holds a psd phd for minnesota, teaches us anything 10. Come againstk was obscenity, reform, and the politics of womanhood in america. More recently she published how sex became a civil liberty, which followed several pathbreaking articles on the same subject. Barbarous holds a phd from uc berkeley and a jd from stanford. She teaches at a law school and is the author of three books in cultural legal history. The laws of image, i find book theme,xactly on our newsworthy on the Supreme Court, and Privacy Supreme Court and privacy, and movie crazy, an earlier work on films which also intersect with questions of privacy. Their i go who received her phd in princeton is professor of history and director of the american studies program. Its overlap on the question at vanderbilt. Her first book, the average american, was and remains a much celebrated work. She is completing a cultural history of modern privacy. Thank you. Andy, thank you. Andy leeann. This is actually my great privilege leeann is such a wonderful scholar and colleague. I have no objection to anyones sex life as long as they dont practice it in the street and frighten the horses. Patrick campbell, a purchase stage actress commenting on ouster wilds of flirtations with men in the 1890s. What he actually said may have been a variation on this version, but her point was clear. Ones sex life should not concern the public, unless carried on in public. 20th century americans have not been so concerned about scaring horses, but they still access over what sexual behavior should be confined to the private sphere and which could safely appear in public. To explaink aimed how sexual material and behavior became a constitutionalize as Civil Liberties. I very quickly became a mashed in questions of sexual privacy. Though it even as many 20th century americans challenged the victorious spheres that the drawn strict and ultimately unsustainable boundaries between public and private, they continued to wrestle with questions about sexual privacy. Privacy beal available only to married couples, or also enjoyed by individuals . Homeit reside only in the or might it extend to a rented public gymnasium . To a city sidewalk, about the workplace . And what is sexual privacy anyway . And sexual privacy include a right not to be confronted with sexual expression . So far, my research on privacy thefocused on activists in American Civil Liberties union, the aclu, and Advocacy Organization founded in 1920 by former antiwar progressives turned Greenwich Village civil libertarians. Aclu Founders First gloat floated a notion of sexual the when defending new just nudists in the 1930s. They argued that a new your law criminalizing mixed sex family nudity invaded the privacy of the home. An invasion by the states that merry risk in text defined for the aclu, resented quote as a wife and mother of two children. These arguments would not gain approval among lower courts until the 1950s. And a handful of cases that began to introduce the notion that a right to privacy might include mixed sex nudity. Behavior that many associated with sexuality. It was first control of course that brought in the u. S. Supreme courts. The court found in griswold a rightnnecticut 1965 to marital sexual privacy in the constitution. A few years later it extended that right to singles and eisenstadt versus baird 1972. And in roe v. Wade, 1973, 2 that womans limited right to obtain an abortion. These stories are well known. What i have found interesting are the ways that even as a constitutional right to sexual privacy was developed around issues of womens reproductive rights in the 1960s and 70s, many people were expressing a decline in their experience of sexual privacy. Award winning an journalist published in 1970 in the on this issue popular magazine, look. Whats happening to sexual privacy, he asked. Is it dying, he wondered, in a sexd where quote, public pops up everywhere,. Cricket was far from alone in suggesting that public sex could violate sexual privacy. In the 1960s and 70s, many individual, even for a time some aclu leaders for time tried to establish a version of sexual the that would recognize unwanted exposure to sexual expression, whether in public or private lives in violation of sexual privacy. Raise these issues in the 1960s and 70s. Debates involved a wide range of people including individual mail recipients, aclu attorneys,oliticians, decency activist Newspaper Publishers and advertisers. Direct mail advertising had taken off in the postwar era. In the early 1960s, publisher Ralph Ginsberg used it to reach millions of potential subscribers to arrows, a new magazine devoted to love and sex. 10,000 people who received ginsbergs circular responded angrily. Meanwhile in 1966, the post office received 200,000 complaints from postal patrons who objected to finding unsolicited sexual material in their mailboxes, even on the floors of their entryways. Testify befores congress to demand a law that would allow individuals to refuse mail from any concern that had sent sexual material in the past. The counsel for the post office pointed out that when sexual displays are quote, thrust up lawn upon us, our privacy is invaded, and the patron must have the quote, right to secure to privacy of his home, and quote and people could not receive without their consent graphic as for strippers schoolbook, men only, scanty panties, and the phibro finger. Without the protest without the proposed law, postal postal patrons cannot maintain their privacy. The aclu attorneys fought back, arguing that the proposed law would violate the First Amendment. The right of privacy may be one of the most precious rights of man, they conceded, but it must nevertheless yield when it comes paramountt with the right of freedom of speech,. In the end, the aclu lost. Patrons who demanded privacy through protection from unsolicited sexual mailings, one won. In 1970 the u. S. Supreme court postd many laws and rosie office 1970. In millers right to communicate, the court declared, most quotes, stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee, in order to protect the privacy of homes. The home was one thing, but what about sexual expression thrust an unwilling individuals in public spaces . Of three new york 1967, the court overturned the conviction of a new york city newsstand clerk prosecuted under state law for selling sexually explicit books, but suggested it might have upheld a more narrowly drawn a statute designed to protect children or prevent an assault upon individual privacy. Quotes,t made it impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure. Then, instantly be georgia, the court endorsed the individuals right to read or observe what he pleases in the privacy of his home on home. Together, read up and stanley charted a new task for privacy as a Civil Liberties that could draw constitutional boundaries for percent to law. Of these decisions, aclu attorneys began to grapple with the issue of what they called, rusting. Heavily on thomas emerson, a leading First Amendment scholar who helped craft the aclus privacy argument in griswold. Emerson advocated laws against thrusting, arguing that they would protect the public and captivate audiences exposure to uninvited sexual messages and material. Unwanted sexual Communication Functions like action than speech he insisted, because of the shock effect it was capable of producing. Others supported laws against thrusting as protections for children, or if necessary, to preserve or restore a public sphere free of sexual images. Opponents insisted that there is no right of privacy for people in the public arena, and violateithrusting laws the First Amendment. But 1970 the tilt aclu vote boarded voted by a razor thin margin to accept narrowly drawn laws that would prohibit the thrusting of hardcore pornography on unwilling audience. Meanwhile in 1970, the president s commission on obscenity and pornography can he and under lyndon, issued its report. Like the aclu, it recommended the illumination of most of those seat laws, except that protected children and prevented quote, assaults upon individual privacy by offensive public displays. The commission was, widely and roundly denounced by the senate and senator who called for commission and by the new president richard nixon, who condemned the report as quote morally bankrupt. Of course, even as the nations political leaders demanded ongoing and increased restrictions on sexually explicit material, journalist and consumers moved the culture in the opposite direction. The former by receiving xrated movies and mainstream newspapers in the latter by patronizing them in droves. Thus the golden age of pornography arrived in the middle of an electoral turn toward the right. In this context, the aclu reconsidered its policy on thrusting. National board member and First Amendment scholar Franklin Haman ridiculed the concept of thrusting. Individuals had the right to privacy from sexual speak. Privacy will be added really safeguarded he insisted, is lens we protect our right to escape from one another after the first exposures unwelcome communication. Others continue to argue that obscenity in Public Places is like a physical assault on a captive audience. Sidewere now on the losing. At least until now and for the notion of, thrusting as an impermissible display of sexually explicit material 2 would never again policy. Aclu it appeared only a few times and a handful of lower court cases in the late 19 70s and early 1980s. But like samantha, i have found that by the 1970s, freedom of the press had practically eclipsed privacy. Even so, the law continues to to empower postal patrons to put a stop to sexually oriented advertising. The survival and endurance of these was aims directly related to their emergence out of the demands of patrons. Those ordinary citizens, whose experiences of embassy are so difficult to recover. By comparison, the notion of thrusting had a short shelflife, less than a decade. Still her public life remains governed by rules about sexual to ways. What they are as far from clear. The extremes to which they might go remains equally unclear. We can safely say about protecting about protecting the sensibilities of horses. What a law prevents billboard from it featuring explicit text scenes, what was keep xrated magazines from appearing in supermarket checkout lines. Today it is zoning laws, and mainly at protecting property values, Sexual Harassment laws designed to prevent sex discrimination, and range of laws that attempt to protect children from exposure to sexual material, and the mysterious that remainandards at the core of obscenity law. But i would suggest that our public life has become one shaped less bylaws than by corporate assessments of and efforts to shape consumer pallets. How i wonder, do these efforts related to the privacy experiences of ordinary citizens question mark and and finally, what does it mean to turn what are the risks a publicits of turning sphere over to corporate assessments of public taste question mark [applause] ok. Ago in an one year invasion of privacy case that made headlines, the wrestler hulk hogan one 140 million against the gossip website gawker for publishing a sex tape. Ithout his consent the massive judgment stirred and heated National Discussion around the right to privacy and freedom of the press. To many, it seemed intuitively writes that hogan win the lost. An explicit video, anyone would be horrified and humiliated by such intimate exposure. On the other hand, this was true and the First Amendment protects truthful speech. Issue,ascinated by this this tension between privacy and freedom. Two recent books, ive have written about how americans in the past entry have struggled to balance these values. The story about how privacy made a start in american law, but receded in the face of the increasing priority that courts began to place on the freedom of the press and what has been described as the publics right to know. By the 1970s, freedom of the press had practically eclipsed privacy, which is when the hogan verdict was surprising and could eventually signal new directions in the law. I want to tell you a little bit about this history. Unlike the legal actions for libel, which deals with false facts, the legal actions or invasion of privacy deals with true but in their thing personal personal facts. This came into being in the late 1800s in response to the rise of the mass media. The mass circulation got the columns and printed photographs, which were sent to threaten a persons ability to control his public image and his right to be let alone. In 1890, to lawyers in a famous harvard law review old proposed legal action that would allow people to sue the press for , butshing true embarrassing and intimate facts or images and to recover damages for emotional distress. So framed as a right of dignity, a writes that was generally not protect did under american law at the time, this right to privacy was controversial. It resonated deeply with a public that had become and served with a threat to the individual posed by unwanted exposure to the public gaze. Within a few decades the threat to privacy would be recognized in most states. So even though protections for freedom of speech werent as extensive back then as they are today, they were nonetheless constitutional problems with privacy laws that would allow people to sue the press just because they found materials invasive or offensive. If the right to privacy were not limited in some way, a politician upset with the press coverage of a scandal, might be able to successfully sue for an invasion of privacy, and it would have a Chilling Effect on the press. So to protect the press, courts adopted a privilege for publishing matters of public. Nterest or concern sometimes they were described as newsworthy material. Werers of Public Interest defined as topics that served the Public Interest in the sense of the common good. Fallacious gossip, though interesting, was not a legitimate matter of Public Interest. A news story about a politicians be a legitimate matter of Public Interest that personald light his straits could be a matter of Public Interest if it shed light on his fitness for office. A story about his sex life would not be a privileged edge public courts said they had no need a right to know such intimate personal details. By the 1950s it began to steadily broadened, tracking the rise of more speech protected First Amendment jurisprudence of the courts growing popular increasing financial muscle of the press, able to retain the top lawyers to make convincing First Amendment arguments in court. Shift, someant courts were deferring to the media on the newsworthiness question. There is a shift from a normative question of matters of Public Interest. A matter of Public Interest was with the public should be interested in coming to a descriptive definition a matter of Public Interest is what the public was interested in. Something appeared in a publication that claimed to be a news outlet, it was, by definition, newsworthy. This reason but that the press published only what the public was interested in and willing to pay for. And it wasnt the business of the court to be passing judgment on public cases. A too narrow view of newsworthiness would infringe on what was being described as the right of the public to be informed. To have the information it needed engage in public discussion of affairs, which was described as the foundation of participatory democracy. Business ve newsworthiness rent outcomes that some critics thought is just thought of as disturbing. There is great public there is interest in celebrities Public Private rise lives. Courts, even ordinary citizens they were involved in newsworthy events. The sued for invasion of privacy. Lawsuits failed on the grounds that victims became a part of the newsworthy event, unwillingly, and lost the right to privacy. Metal courts were willing to go so far. As somebody put it, some revelations might be so intimate and unwarranted as to outrage the communities notions of decency. In cases where womens modesty was compromised, courts often recovery for invasion of privacy. When a newspaper published a picture of a woman whose skirt had blown over her head. So then a privacy norms were tendered. Privacylict the between and freedom of the press intensified after the Second World War for several reasons. A competition for audiences, not only among print publishers, but also radio and tv broadcasters, led to increasingly sensational and invasive material. More generally, the public was becoming conscious of privacy and its meanings and senses. The cm urged as a major issue of public concern after the war. There was a panic around privacy, brought on largely by the advent of new technologies. Not unlike todays privacy panic. So, privacy was besieged not only by the media, but by governments, employers, researchers, advertisers, marketers, and pollsters, armed with new communication, data processing, and surveillance technologies, including the first primitive computers. Environment, courts began to create and expand protections for brought things in a variety of contexts, resulty 1965 court case versus net connecticut. They claim to find a constitutional right to marital privacy and penumbral stand of the bill of rights. At the same time, protections for privacy were expanding so a press freedoms. After a war after they abolished the book and film censorship, they rolled back restrictive laws around publishing pornography and libel. As a Supreme Court stated in its 1964 decision in New York Times versus sullivan which gave the press a broad First Amendment right to criticize public , uninhibited robust and wide open public debate, political debate was the essence of a free society. And then this context heels of sullivan and is walled at the Supreme Court decided to take a case that directly pitted privacy against freedom of the press this is a subject of my most recent book. The court in this privacy conscious environment, recognize a broader right to privacy against the media question mark when the recognition of the constitutional right to privacy in griswold have any bearing on the individuals right to recover against the press . , timing versus hell involves the hill family, victims of a harrowing hostage crime who had been publicized in life magazine three years after the crime in 1955. They claimed that they had a right to be left alone, that life violated when it wrote about them. Life is published by time inc. Large judgment to trial, upheld on appeal. This went to the u. S. Supreme court. Richard nixon, a practicing lawyer at the time come a year before he ran for president , and a few after his disastrous failed attempt to run for the governorship of california, argued the hills case before the Supreme Court. Nixons involvement in this case, which he saw as a chance to rebrand himself before the public and to exact his longstanding war on the press, as a whole interesting story that i described in the book. So a majority of the court initially decided in favor of privacy. Nixons sympathetic prep a justice wrote a strongly worded opinion, in which he stated that the new life article was not news. Constitutional right to privacy is recognized in griswold bolstered the hills claims to a right to be left alone by the media. Ut his opinion was not issued at the last minute, several justices swayed by the First Amendment absolutist justice hugo black, switched their position. A majority opinion by Justice William brennan issued in january 1967, suggested that the press had a First Amendment right to publish on all matters of public concern, defined broadly, and that a person should have no expectation of privacy when it came to media exposure, in conjunction with newsworthy events. So, foreshadowing or 21st century panoptic society, the court suggested that a person waived his right to privacy by virtue of living in a media saturated environment, where it was possible to be recorded and publicized at any time. So this case marked a turning point. It seemed to give constitutional validation to the broad interpretation of newsworthiness that had been adopted by many state courts. Lateresult of hill and cases, it has become extremely difficult to win a privacy case against the media. Thats among among items deemed newsworthy included the names and addresses of rape victims, Sexual Orientation of a man to try to keep it private, facts surrounding a suicide, a doctors psychiatric history among other personal facts. Technically, the hill decision was narrow, limited the particular new york law that the case was brought under. This question of this freedom is one we must resolve soon in our age of surveillance and voyeurism, on on the instability and social media overexposure. This legal battle is uniquely american. Europe has a much stronger right to privacy. European law protects Free Expression but it also has protections for dignity that the u. S. Is not. Has tendedrican law to downplay the harms of media invasion. Traditional stances that people should develop a thick skin. Having one reason the right to privacy has failed to take off in immediate context is because it arose alongside the development of modern free space law and also the growth of powerful Media Companies with the resources to beat private claims. One obstacle i faced that we all may face in our work is gauging how ordinary citizens actually felt about privacy. There has been opinion polls tracking the Public Attitude toward media invasion of privacy. The public has always thought that the press is to basis. There is also this paradox to grapple with. How can people say they value privacy and be so willing to disclose personal fax . How can the public claim to be outraged by publications like gawker and yet they draw in millions of viewers. There are many interesting legal and cultural questions around gauging Public Attitude toward privacy. Ultimately, the range and diversity of those feelings is a challenge. The and, i will say that as a historian and lawyer, the real action is where do we go from our . How can we resolve very deep conflicts between privacy and Free Expression and how might history inform the choices that we need to make today . I wonder if we are at it critical moment like the 1960s when both personal, privacy and press freedom presented themselves as values of critical importance. I wonder what choices we will make today. Thank you. [applause] thank you to my cup panelists. This has already been such an interesting counterpoint on privacy. I will try to add to it by picking up another strand of privacy discussion, i will mostly talk about what we think of as data or Information Privacy. I want to try to connect it to some of the things that the talkedanelists have about and samanthas last point about how we engage Public Attitudes is really what i have been interested in. Not so much the history of privacy and law but the privacy sensibilities overtime. I will try to speak to that a little bit. We know that american concerns about the state and fate of personal privacy are at a very high pitch. I dont think that is news to anyone. Hand, we have Edward Snowdens revelations about nsa spying. We have google glass, drones, commercial algorithms that seem to know is better than we know ourselves. On the other issue that samantha race, we have the rise of what seems to be the opposite south tracking, quantified cells. Realitybased entertainment and individuals relentless quest for exposure. In an expanding universe of social media. These developments may be contradictory or they may be connected. I lean toward the latter. Either way, they tell us that privacy is not at all private. Privacy has become an essential category, sometimes i think socentral categories many things come under the banner. For the last several years, i have been wrestling i dont use that term lightly, i have been wrestling with this history and the concept of privacy in American Life. It turned into a history of how privacy came to fit at the center of u. S. Politics and culture. Isvacy is important to note not always a matter of public import. Beginning in the late 19th century, increasing numbers of citizens both claimed a right to privacy and believe their privacy to be endangered in one form or another. This is a story that is still unfolding. When i think makes it especially complicated but also intriguing for historians is the dizzying rain range of topics that gather under the banner. As my copanelists have suggested, privacy is one of those concepts that stands out on my domains. The mass media, public sexuality are just two of the places that privacy services. Americans have turned to the language of privacy to debate everything from National Security to public health, suburban architecture, psychological experimentation, official data banks, professional memoirs, reproductive rights, that is a short list. Drive a historian of privacy a little crazy. There is one strategy for thinking about this, philosophers, legal thinkers, they address the progress by trying to formulate precise spatial,s of its bodily, decisional and informational strands. Questions that are interesting lie elsewhere. That is not what privacy really is, what it is made of, what is ingredients are. Privacy in such variable circumstances might reveal what has fascinated me when these lines is that americans invoke privacy, they always also express common sense philosophies about the modern social order. All of those institutions and forces, both public and private that place pressures on the individual person. To appeal to privacy and invoke it in a public setting or on a private one was to make an argument about the proper boundary between citizens and the larger society. I want to emphasize that they are not the state. There is a range of different kinds of social institutions. My instinct is to treat privacy less as a thing or a measurable quality than as an index to changing ideas about social life itself. The history of privacy is not reducible to any single storyline. I suspect that if prominent in the modern United States is linked to the emergence of what i would call a knowing society. That saw constantly changing ways to understand, govern and minister to its members by scrutinizing them in fuller and finer detail. Privacy talk immediate the perils of being known. This house make sense of that. A demand to be sheltered from the eu, in some circumstances but in others the desire to be shared and be seen. It accounts for why privacy has moved so insistently to the foreground of u. S. Political culture. It indicates that it will remain there for the suitable future. Across the 20th century, americans became known by all kinds of agencies, state bureaucracies, Law Enforcement agents, by the popular press, financial institutions, marketers, private corporations, scientific researchers, psychological experts, data by their ownalso doctors, employers, teachers and neighbors. The proliferation of techniques for making citizens noble from offer reports could also opportunities and security. It could also threaten personal autonomy. Undermining the notion of a freestanding individual. Likewise, we have to remember and to remainnown unknown could be a form of this empowerment, although, in others, it was a sign of a privilege sign of privilege. The identifiable to a social welfare agency, the Social Security administration that received benefits for unemployment or retirement with a different matter than the traceable in a national, criminal or database. Given the number and range of parties that aim to know them, modern americans rightfully wondered what parts of the personality, identity, biography, psyche they had ultimate claim to. How much should the society be able to gleam about its own members . How much should oneself willingly revealed themselves to others and make public . What aspects were worse knowing and to the and which aspects were truly ones own . What would a knowing society mean for the people cause people in the embrace . Would touch every asset of American Life in the 20th century. Is history of the noncitizen quite winding and unpredictable. It is a challenging history to plot. A couple of examples are the case of something rather mundane, the Social Security number in american culture. This is an item first defined to the u. S. Workers. The plan was to give individuals a unique identifying number. It kicked up some political controversy. This rather quickly subsided. The rewards of Economic Security seemed to outweigh your answer. Across the mid century decades, the Social Security number would become a cup a badge of inclusion. Even a mark of economic citizenship, and belonging. Although it is hard to fathom now, there was a flourishing security, aocial number of plaques and plates. They embedded with their individual numbers, rings and necklaces. Than this,rther permanently thinking Social Security numbers on their size or their biceps and what newspapers heralded as a boon for the tattoo industry. I bet that ended after world war ii. Soon after world war ii. Not immediately, interestingly. Through the 1950s, Social Security numbers had a white public face. Specific numbers were broadcasted in radio contests. The rise of the computer age was a reversal. Social security numbers were increasingly recognized as the linchpin of a vast network of data banks that house personal information. Often the creation of a federal tax force, multiple congressional hearings. As Social Securitys commissioners would say, the agencys record constituted one of the Worlds Largest constitutional status. Much of it is instantly retrievable from computer records. The Social Security number would then become swept into a larger theique of what some called records of prison. A brandnew threat to American Civil Liberties. It shows how the very same item transformed from a semi public badge into a highly asvate piece of information the technological, political and bureaucratic ground shifted. In other cases, the traffic moved in the opposite direction. , thee very same moment Social Security number was becoming private. What was once closely guarded secrets, sexual, emotional and autobiographical were moving out into the open. Watergate, therapeutic culture and the air of social movement, many clamored for transparency in law, politics and even private life. This is a hallmark of second wave feminism. Evident in many other places in american culture. Documentary film for example, lawmakers voluntarily disclosing their tax returns. In the emotional tenet of Television Talk shows. Eventually in the outing of gay public figures and celebrities and in the publishing phenomenon of the 1990s. Commentators would the whale the idea of a confessional culture. Whether drug addiction or sexual abuse. In the 1990s, it would become known as the decade of revelation. Marked by what one critic called the inexhaustible eagerness of people to tell their life story. Some critics say that even more worrisome than improper prying into American Private lives by extrusion ofas the personal matters into Public Places. When one goat lamented that the destruction of privacy is the great collective project of our time, this is what he was referring to. Is there not something to be said for the examined life . This new insistence on revelation accompanied heightens concern about citizens ability for privacy course in recent decades. It does suggest how potent privacy talk was in helping americans to navigate the pole and the push of a knowing society. Its rewards as well as its risks. Ist remains to be seen whether we can interweave these various streams of five c talk into a deeper and more satisfying account of how privacy has come to matter in a modern america. How to chart these ships and americanthinking about intrusion and is quickly changing social web. Tengion those about matters as different as sexual relationships, personal data, Political Rights and intellectual item, as it move in concert or have they almost on the on track . The privacyn does that citizens claim as a constitutional right. Or, is the institutional sodscape of privacy is it this is on my mind right now as i finished a book on this topic. It is not only for my own sake that i hope historians will be open to tackling this russian. Not of our history is privacy and political culture. Thank you. This is on my ipad. It is what i wrote last night. This was a very long plane ride. Thank you. This is a reflection on the wisdom and knowingness of these papers by someone who is less wise and less knowing. Take it for what it is worth. Sex,per givers protection from sexual attack. What is it all about . Let me use these illuminating papers to make two suggestions, very much, i mean them as speculations. Both come out of my peculiar background and interest in some recent ratings. These suggestions are stimulated by these papers, not founded on anything like expertise. The first is that we think of privacy through the lens of property law. We work to track its dimensions and ways that paralleled the growth and elaboration of property law. As it moved in the 20th century out and away from land to incorporate information and images in the body. As private spaces disappear and private dominions and relationships become contested, if we think about privacy through the lens of property law, ive say that i make that suggestion because one conventional starting point for it would be with the home, the 17th century conceptions captured and completely in the fourth possesst, some people private spaces. To borrow the cynically Public Discourse that possessing and properly governing a household became entitled to self selfgovernance in a public sphere. And to protect from things thrust upon them. The story of privacy is largely about what happens when such claims moved outside of the home towards images of the self and when such claims attached themselves to bodies that should have remained in private. Preeminently but also children and others. Bodies that became unprotected from patriarchy. Bodies engaged in new relationships. The story of privacy, like the story of property law explodes in response to technological and commercial and governmental changes that are the conventional wisdoms of 20th century history. To the automobile. Toward sex, obviously, but also toward various forms of intellectual property. Ultimately, to the extent that one owns ones information like the Social Security number. My new colleague has written brilliantly about how privacy gets tied up with involuntary movements and behaviors. Involuntary facial expressions. The taking of that which could not be controlled. Sex is a surrogate for that but she means more of the facial expressions of early photography. Other property claims, other assertions of private dominion, privacy always generates contrary and competing claims. This is to appeal to privacy and make an argument. To invoke what Duncan Kennedy once called the fundamental contradiction, every claim to isolation or protection from others is always matched by a competing need for connection and for relational identities. Modern americans want many things, only some of which are satisfied by privacy times. There is a public than wants to know many things, there is a government that things a contempt or public ends by knowing many rings. Our commercial interests that understand themselves as a right to thrust into public spaces to violate privacy. That we feelaim safer when much is known about others, when privacy is limited or violated. Totudent of mine is about finish a senior thesis about and its your prison rights case in the mid1970s that took place after a ride in the Bedford Hills womens prison, it is called prisonle guards in the violate the prisoners privacy rights . Feminists were split on this question, radical feminists against liberal feminists, a classic debate. Eventually the aclu womens rights project led by ginsburg took the side of the union and the male guards and one equality trumps privacy. Andas a very close complicated question. I could go on borrowing examples that the panelists raised a brilliantly. I dont think any of the paper givers would agree with this formulation but that is the provocation. Do these papers and the books when it. Rlie them began and when that has ended, do they describe to use the familiar cliches of historical practice, a lost world, and will we have lost, a foreign country. Was there an age of privacy . Perhaps one that began as property conceptions were free from land in the late 19th century. As information became of value in addition to the war. You can look to the ins versus a peak is from 1919 which may be important. Also, the automobile as this weird private space that has lived on public spaces that is subject to pervasive regulation. Not to mention photography. As corporations like to create an satisfied a demand for information and the right to Privacy Group and flourished for a time, lets call the 20th century, eventually became constitutionalize at least around sex. Drawing on the suspicion of the state that developed on both the left and the right. Was a crucial actor in this on every side. Then it ended. I think that is a metaphor historical inquiry. A certain familiar sensibility that i think is actually in all three of the papers is maybe gone today. Thatis the surveillance was the foundation for a great john mack of paranoid filmmaking in the 1970s. Think of gene hackman in the conversation or three days of the condor. Films, ismber of spy today a hohum cars of everyday life . We imagine the cia and the fbi as the good guys. Not how i grew up. I spend most of my childhood out of sight of my parents. Living in the privacy of boyhood in the 1960s. They would not have wanted me to buy pornography. I could go and buy and read it in the gully behind my parents home and no one would know. Worried about a camera recording me. My grandchildren will never have that experience. George k cap, the great political theorist publishing wonderful essay about how meaningful the right of privacy is for human flourishing, the heart of the piece is a reflection on the affront he feels when he walks through a park or public space knowing that somewhere, surveillance cameras are watching him. He doesnt have to see them to experience what they are doing to his sense of wellbeing. George is well into his 80s. I fear his world is gone. When the age of privacy and it is for another day. I think it is worth thinking about. I have a suggestion of what to look at first. The moment beginning in the 1980s and 1990s but increasingly after 2000 when we voluntarily gave up information for convenient and four things. When all of us signed the boilerplate language that allows amazon. Com to sell and aggregate our information about what we read and what we buy in exchange for quick turnaround. The easy past tool, those of us who live on the east coast that in line onot to wait the turnpike. My friends have refused to get there easy past. I think theyre crazy because i hate to wait in line. There is more to be said and written about habits of self as sarah mentioned both on the web and memoirs. Aboutis more to be said the desire for security and safety that leads to acquiescence in pervasive surveillance. Resistance seems futile but i might start with corporate america. My points are those of a historian. When privacy was a value to fight over and argue over. That era had a beginning and it has now ended. During that. , much, if not all that was thought to be privacy closely tracked a change in domain of property law. Or so it seems to be. I will stop there. [applause] i am reluctant to speak on behalf of leeann even though she was very disappointed not to be here. I will say in response to what inspirationsof the for her recent book was conversations with her students and she was asking them about whether they watch pornography and what really surprised her that students, both female and male, just assumed that pornography was a First Amendment right. Which shocked her as a scholar of obscenity law. In fact, we have a phd student in our program on how we just so easily give up our permission to all of our information, that that does sort of give credence to sort of think about how, generationally, historically, we need to contextualize what privacy is in different generations. Its a very cogent point. I have all kinds of responses to what you laid out there. A quick thing on this the property law point, which is that i think that its right that american notions about privacy have never totally untethered from a property understanding so that ownership gets entangled with ideas about privacy, even as those claims are kind of virtualized to move out to image and information. Ive been thinking a lot about how people become owners of their personal information. We think that we own it but it was always owned by other agencies and its only recently that we have owned that stuff or claimed to own it. That was something people never had access to before the 1970s. This is an interesting issue. We might argue, not that this is the golden age of privacy. A sociologist that it was the Third Quarter of the 19th century and that was it. There was this 25 years. I dont think i would agree. I might argue that the beginning of our current moment i will argue that in fact, exactly at the moment that there is a political come a public discussion about the loss of privacy is when something new begins. So, the beginnings of the end of privacy are in fact the beginnings of our modern conceptions of privacy. I think theres a very important and new, though historically important discussion going on now. I think our conventions around it are changing as we adapt to new technological, bureaucratic, political, cultural landscapes. I do think that surveillance people have argued, are we at the tipping point, are we about to tip into something completely different . Theyve been arguing that for a long time. Are we at the end of something that what was predicted as Science Fiction in the 1970s is all around us or are we reimagining what privacy can mean in that world . Can i say one more quick thing . One element of our current landscape is the use of surveillance against the survey letters. These new words that keep getting invented like doxxing and so forth, theyre tools that everybodys got, allowing people to enact surveillance. Maybe something thats new in our current moment. My response to your comments would be to kind of project this whole idea of beginnings and ends. I think its ongoing and its just about shifting the balance. If we think about, do we have more privacy today . The instinctive answer would be no, we have no privacy today. Think about the way with which you could live in your home all of the time and not have to go outside and interact . Is there some kind of privacy that affords us at the same time that its stripping us of our privacy . People saying, we all want to publicize ourselves. If you look at the very contentious debates over Information Privacy that we read about in the news, the whole verdict, that spurs the National Discussion on how the media has gone too far and how aspects of life would remain private. We stick privacy in a different balance in different historical periods contingent on technology and other factors. To say there is a golden age or its gone now doesnt really capture this tension and nuance that i think more accurately describes the story. Would you please identify yourself . Great, great panel. Great discussion. I think your talk and then the comment you start to move a little bit away from a legal concept or even a part of the culture and get to the complexity, which i think, sarah, youre wrestling with, all the changes in the economy, technology, business, someone incoherently but formed into things that are more solidified. I think another way to make some sense of this would be to think in terms of kind of abandoned something that is impossible to abandon. Privacy and surveillance are essentially power struggles between different actors. I can shield myself from corporate intrusiveness through privacy but then they say, we cant comment on that. Universities do it all the time. Its a personal matter, we cant comment on that. Its constantly going back and forth. I think it is important not to allow privacy to be seen as the golden child. There are ways in which privacy shields people in terms of public figures. You look across the world privacy laws keeping personal information out of public hands are using information to prevent [indiscernible] i wanted to get in on this before we go. The process by which the information that is made public that violates privacy is really slighted in the history of privacy in a way that makes it difficult to put together. By the time we got to the end, we were talking more about surveillance. In our previous discussions of privacy, it wasnt clear. Surveillance is an interesting disruption event. We talk about whether there was ever privacy. Its clearly not the case. Our discussions focus on technology. Surveillance without technology. A lot of that periodization of privacy gets screwed up. We are drawn too much to the technology. We have had surveillance for a long time with people following people in writing it down. That continues. You talked about the history of privacy, parts that nobody else does. I would be really interested in hearing you all talk about why we find it so hard to talk about surveillance at the same time as privacy. It is interesting in that you are not often perceived as violating privacy because they dont publish the information that they find, they share it with a client, and therefore, they are not invading privacy in the same sense that the law deals with it. I find it challenging to attach my narrative of surveillance to the narrative of privacy because its not public information. Id really be interested in hearing how you think of the relationship between surveillance and privacy and why we have such a hard time managing to talk about those two things at the same time . People are always watching people. Ive also been looking a little bit at private investigators who certainly, in the 1950s, as they roam around suburbia and in cities, are considered a privacy threat by people because they are giving up all kinds of information, whether working for insurance agencies, credit agencies, people looking for cheating spouses, or whatever. I dont see a way to really think about the history of privacy without thinking about surveillance. I think there might be a difference between thinking about surveillance in our contemporary sense and surveillance practices which of course have always been around. Its helpful for me to think about practices of prying as adding up to something that, by the late 1960s, early 1970s, its called a Surveillance Society. I think it might be useful to think about when those practices come to be recognized that the people who live in a society as a really important framework for how the society runs based on processes of monitoring and observing citizens behaviors, actions, so forth. I know there are some people who work on surveillance who really dont like the word being attached to all those earlier practices. Theres maybe an interesting debate to be had. I do think a Surveillance Society might be Something Different than the fact that we know that people are always seeking to know about different people in all periods, eras, places. That may just be a response based on i would say that there is a surveillance aspect of the privacy story in america in that 20th century. That is the 1950s. There was a lot of public concern not only about state surveillance but also private detectives and the new technologies coming out, new hidden cameras, recording devices. Also, consumer surveillance. Department stores, restaurants installing hidden microphones, twoway mirrors. There is a moment where surveillance, not only by state actors but a variety of parties, emerges as a panic. I think that sounds to me like a story of the middle class. It belies the population of the United States to be surveilled. These massive multinational private organizations. Pinkerton intruding in workingclass populations across the country on a massive scale. The state would take that over in the 30s. Private organizations doing surveillance in the 50s. I think the problem with that narrative is thats a middleclass story. The middleclass experiences surveillance. Workingclass americans, africanamericans, radicals are subject to a surveillance state from well back in the 19th century. I think we have to be wary about the middleclass experience being somewhat distinctive. The corporations that i think you were talking about in interesting ways rolled surveillance in the first half of the 20th century. Sarah, vanderbilt law school. I want to ask about some of the comments about property and corporations. I want to ask about the other part, which is the approach to government, Public Sector investment. The reason this came into my mind is, when youre talking about the case, and that we dont get to talk about the question because gawker went bankrupt and drop the lawsuit, it speaks to how these are determined through private litigation, so we dont necessarily have an open, deliberative process. I think the gawker case has even more layers to it then your description hints at, because peter thiel was funding this because he was angry at gawker. Youre looking at private wealth, people can find litigation being able to pull questions off the agenda. Im curious if you can talk is some of the anxiety that privacy perhaps because we have a government structure that makes all of those questions kind of subject to private deliberation or corporate decisionmaking or private litigation rather than a more open public debate, which might explain the differences in europe . Thank you. My question namely, im interested in thinking about the corporation and the state, how similar and different they are about privacy. In both cases, you need the state to know you, recognize you, such as a Social Security number. People who have no id cant Access Health care or anything. At the same time, part of the worry about state surveillance, because the state authority and power. I think there is an interesting question about corporations in that way. Ads that dont have anything to do with me. Dont you know me better than that . You have so much data on me. Corporations are able to profit in a way from unintended uses, where i give up certain data because i want to use facebook messenger. I spent six years as a board member of the new jersey state aclu board. There was a retreat at one point after 9 11. Clearly, there was a whole series of issues. The retreat was to decide which would be the policy priorities of the state aclu board. I was then put on the privacy subcommittee. I tried to argue that amazon. Com ought to be a privacy concern, the giving up of data. It was a fundamentally older group of Civil Liberties litigators, they just didnt believe it. For them, the state information was the problem. The voluntary giving up of information just didnt resonate. Thats now a decade ago and i would be curious if a similar moment, you would have the same reaction that, in 2006, they did. Ill try to make a Quick Response to that. One thing that has really intrigued me at looking at this question is the blurriness between corporate and state, especially from the perspective of people worried about privacy. Theres not a lot of drawing of lines between those entities in how people think about privacy. A Credit Report is just as bad as the federal government knowingness about you and so on. It has to do with one thing that i think is really interesting, is that material practices on the ground do not always seem to match up with privacy scares. Its the kind of politics of attention. The things that get attention, of course, have middleclass concerns. We have to think about who the subjects of privacy are. Slavery is a Surveillance System but we dont think of that in a surveillance way. To my mind, americans have come late to this issue of corporate invasions of privacy, although in the 30s, my research on Social Security numbers has shown that americans were much more willing to trust the state that employers on information. They saw the state as an intermediary between themselves and their employers. There a very mixed history. I think our tendency is to say that americans fear the state most, but i dont think thats right. Could you identify yourself . We were having this discussion. A Health Care Company had her come in and they took all of this data. The carrot is, well get Lower Health Care costs if you give us all this data. You put on a fitbit even you go to the gym. They give you coupons, they pay for your gym membership, all of this. We talked about that. This corporation, this Health Care Company has all of this. What if the state takes away protections for preexisting conditions . What if the state comes in and now tells that corporation, you can use that data not to give that Person Health care. Kind of scary. Dan woodford, university of texas at dallas. The discussion seems to indicate that privacy is kind of an individual good, or at least that seems to be formulated as an individual good. I dont hear much about family rights, thinking of any intermediary social formation that is not an individual sort of right. Im wondering about that, is that just a characteristic that does come to a kind of property law formulation, and is just about individual control, and therefore, everything that is an invasion of privacy and revolves around individual rights . It obviously shaped the discussion. It doesnt mean there could be an alternative. Youre saying that there havent been alternatives maybe in law, but there havent been alternative formulations throughout American History of a different distinction between the public and the private that involves some other association or level of social life that carries some kind of private protection . Not the log necessarily, but in cultural conception. Public decency has been invoked, so that would be an example. Also, as derek pointed out, sort of proprietary, 19thcentury ideas, household. Aggregate privacy. There was no privacy at all for women in the 19th century. But also, corporations have privacy. There are plenty of collections. Also, social groups. One of the interesting debate that emerges is about the rights of groups and how they will be known in public. Africanamerican residents of a housing project, do they have a kind of collective privacy in terms of their representation . Lots of different i think the american idiom is very individualistic. You were doing history of public parks and what does it mean to be in public parks. There was always a certain level of private freedom to have a barbecue in a public park which is understood as associational. Having sex in public is not on that line. Certainly, having gay sex is not a private freedom. That virtue, the collective good of being able to have private space within this public space, i think, the early makers of the public parks thought in those ways. I wonder, just again to play my periodization card, having cameras in public parks changes that dynamic. Kids can still play particular slightly forbidden games in one corner of the park without thinking someone is going to watch them. It changes the dynamic. It may be makes it much more sharply felt, the distinction between Public Safety and children having to be protected, whatever the public rhetoric is and the individual freedom. I do think surveillance is an important one. One of the events of the late 19th century was the advent of the secret ballot. In your historiography, does that influenced the way people thought about that . I have an undergraduate student write on this topic, switched from private balance to fcc transparency, the Fair Election commission. When this privacy seem to enable public action and deliberation and when does it seem to impede it . I think thats an interesting way to think about political privacy, another interesting stranded all of this. What does political privacy mean, what is it good for . In that sense, i think its another really interesting dimension in another difficult to get your head around subject. One more question. As i think were 12 30. Thank you all so much. [applause] you are watching American History tv. A weekend, every weekend on cspan3. To join the conversation, like us on facebook at cspan history. Tonight, on q a, the comparisons between President Donald Trump and andrew jackson. Our guest Mark Cheetham on his book andrew jacksonsoutherner. I dont think he represents the positive values that jackson representative represented. I do go with help President Trump that if he wants to be yesterdayw jackson, nation in front of his own interest. That is what jackson did for most of his presidency. This weekend, on the presidency, Stephen Kennedy smith, nephew of john f. Kennedy and your vice on the life of the presidency. Their coeditors of jfk, a vision for america, heres a preview. We knew you had to do with the assassination, there is too much attention paid for the assassination at the expense of reallyring what is important and useful about president kennedys ideas for today. We deliberately have always celebrated his birthday. I think that we have to note that this was a National Tragedy and a tragedy for our family. Says a to note that he man may die and nations may rise and fall and an idea lives on. What we are trying to celebrate with his book are those ideas and those ideals because he not only inspired us but confronted us with the opportunities and challenges of citizenship. We are certainly confronted with those things today. One of the things he said in his last speech which he never got in the future, the policies of the United States should be governed by learning and reason. Otherwise they will confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible. There is a lot learned from jfk. Watch the entire Program Sunday at 8 00 p. M. At midnight eastern. This is American History tv only on cspan3. Each week, American History tvs american artifact visits distort places. Malled on the National Near the washington monument, the museum has quickly become one of the most visited in the Nations Capital with capacity crowds almost every day. We