ricklentz · November 4, 2017 23:50
diff --git a/Subject-Behavior-Based Search - Maginot Line - Mosaic Theory.txt b/Subject-Behavior-Based Search - Maginot Line - Mosaic Theory.txt
 Subject/Behavior-Based Search - Maginot Line - Mosaic Theory 

 1. The Supreme Court has ruled that what information falls outside of the protection of the 4th Amendment?  Explain why.

 The  Court  stated  in  Smith  v.  Maryland that  an  individual  has  no  “legitimate  expectation  of  privacy  in  information  he  voluntarily  turns  over  to  third  parties.”  The cumulative effect of  the public  exposure and third-party doctrines renders data mining largely  “outside the  scope of the Fourth Amendment.
 
 2. What are the three criteria that make dog-sniffing acceptable, (i.e., not a violation of privacy)?   The Harvard Law Review article finds dog-sniffing, and the three criteria, a good model for regulating governmental searches of data.  Explain.  (See Part IV of the article.)

 The sniff must only analyze information that is legally obtained;  the sniff must only detect illegal activity; humans must not participate in any search until probable cause has been established by the sniff, and the sniff must have a low false-positive rate. 


 Regarding OkCupid Study Reveals the Perils of Big-Data Science:
 3. Discuss this quotation in a way that reveals understanding of the reading:  “Data is already public.” No harm, no ethical foul right?”

 In this case, the data was subject to aggregation, either by researchers or data aggregating services.  With a simple understanding of this technology, the service was by design, built merely around maximizing profitability.  If privacy were a consideration, the site would have the protections it has today.  

 The contents are the property of OkCupid (and not the customer), so they were able to use a DMCA takedown to remove the aggregated data the researcher scraped from publically searchable profile records.
	Subject/Behavior-Based Search - Maginot Line - Mosaic Theory

	1. The Supreme Court has ruled that what information falls outside of the protection of the 4th Amendment? Explain why.

	The Court stated in Smith v. Maryland that an individual has no “legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” The cumulative effect of the public exposure and third-party doctrines renders data mining largely “outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment.

	2. What are the three criteria that make dog-sniffing acceptable, (i.e., not a violation of privacy)? The Harvard Law Review article finds dog-sniffing, and the three criteria, a good model for regulating governmental searches of data. Explain. (See Part IV of the article.)

	The sniff must only analyze information that is legally obtained; the sniff must only detect illegal activity; humans must not participate in any search until probable cause has been established by the sniff, and the sniff must have a low false-positive rate.


	Regarding OkCupid Study Reveals the Perils of Big-Data Science:
	3. Discuss this quotation in a way that reveals understanding of the reading: “Data is already public.” No harm, no ethical foul right?”

	In this case, the data was subject to aggregation, either by researchers or data aggregating services. With a simple understanding of this technology, the service was by design, built merely around maximizing profitability. If privacy were a consideration, the site would have the protections it has today.

	The contents are the property of OkCupid (and not the customer), so they were able to use a DMCA takedown to remove the aggregated data the researcher scraped from publically searchable profile records.