The advent of the technological boom brought the world smartphones, social media, and Siri. These novel benefits, however, were accompanied by unchartered invasions of privacy. Congress has embarked on the seemingly endless path of protecting its constituents through civil and criminal legislation aimed at combatting such invasions. Two recent examples include the Intimate Privacy Protection Act (“IPPA”) and the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act (“GPS Act”). Nonetheless, the IPPA, which was proposed to criminalize the dissemination of nonconsensual pornography, has garnered much less support—and much more criticism—than its geolocational counterpart.
This Note discusses the striking similarities of both bills, both practically and elementally. The criminality of both bills turns on the issue of contextual consent. Why then do we see such discrepancies in support? The answer may lie in both legal and societal justifications behind privacy protections, suggesting that some forms of privacy warrant more protections than others. Hence, the privacy hierarchy.
Katherine A. Mitchell,
The Privacy Hierarchy: A Comparative Analysis of the Intimate Privacy Protection Act vs. the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act,
73 U. Miami L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol73/iss2/9