Search Details

Word: bartnicki (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

Ciarelli is protected by the First Amendment, Gross says, and cites Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the media defendants who had legally published information that was illegally obtained by others...

Author: By Tina Wang, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER | Title: Computer-Savvy Frosh Faces Lawsuit | 6/9/2005 | See Source »

...United States Supreme Court has addressed this issue several times, including in Bartnicki v. Vopper, a 2001 case involving negotiations between a Pennsylvanian teacher’s union and a district school board. During the discussions, an inflammatory cell phone call was illegally intercepted and the tape of that call was passed on to an anti-union intermediary, who gave the tape to Vopper, a radio news commentator. Vopper, knowing that the tape had been obtained in violation of wiretap and other privacy laws, aired it anyway. The court ruled that this was acceptable: “Privacy concerns give...

Author: By Matthew A. Gline, BITS AND BYTES | Title: Introducing the iLawsuit | 1/19/2005 | See Source »

...situation with Think Secret is, of course, quite different from that in Bartnicki. For one, the interest being protected is not privacy in the broad sense but is rather a corporate trade secret. We also ought to ask whether the information about upcoming product announcements counts as a “matter of public importance.” It does appear that Think Secret’s actions are in violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as Ciarelli probably knew that what he was disclosing had been “derived from...a person who had utilized improper...

Author: By Matthew A. Gline, BITS AND BYTES | Title: Introducing the iLawsuit | 1/19/2005 | See Source »

...ought to be able to come up with a law that properly distinguishes between these situations if economic analyses demonstrate the need; years of legal precedents including Bartnicki have tried. Still, even in such ambiguous circumstances, we must rely, when in doubt, on the Bill of Rights. It guarantees us freedom of the press, and this is a freedom not to be lightly infringed upon. Otherwise, as McKay Professor of Computer Science and former Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 suggests (not, as it were, on condition of anonymity), it would be advisable for University...

Author: By Matthew A. Gline, BITS AND BYTES | Title: Introducing the iLawsuit | 1/19/2005 | See Source »

| 1 |