Mobile streaming video technologies (MSVTs) such as Meerkat and Periscope, which allow users an easily accessible way to stream live video to followers, have the potential to reshape the way people think about any right to privacy they may have in public places, as well as the rights of people to record video in public places. Using legal research methodology, this article examines the privacy law and policy implications of MSVTs, finding that the intrusion and public disclosure torts are unequipped to provide remedies for potential privacy harms and that the First Amendment likely protects live streaming activities of users.
AndersonH. (2012). The mythical right to obscurity: A pragmatic defense of no privacy in public. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 7, 543-602.
6.
ArdiaD. S. (2010). Free speech savior or shield for scoundrels: An empirical study of intermediary immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 43, 373-506.
7.
BarbasS. (2013). The death of the public disclosure tort: A historical perspective. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 22, 171-215.
DriscollP.DupagneM. (2014). Multichannel television services. In GrantA.MeadowsJ. (Eds.), Communication technology update and fundamentals (14th ed., pp. 77-91). Oxford, UK: Focal.
21.
Ex parte Ronald Thompson (2014), 442 S.W. 3d 325 (Texas Ct. Crim. App.).
22.
Florida Statutes (2014), § 934.03.
23.
Fordyce v. City of Seattle (1995), 55 F. 3d 436 (9th Cir.).
24.
FothM.HeikkinenT.YlipulliJ.LuusuaA.SatchellC.OjalaT. (2014). UbiOpticon: Participatory sousveillance with urban screens and mobile phone cameras. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (p. 56-61). New York, NY: ACM.
25.
Fowler v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1965), 343 F.2d 150, 155 (5th Cir.).
KerrO. S. (2007). Four models of Fourth Amendment protection. Stanford Law Review, 60, 503-552.
45.
KirtleyJ. (2015). “Misguided in principle and unworkable in practice”: It is time to discard the Reporters Committee doctrine of practical obscurity (and its evil twin, the right to be forgotten). Communication Law and Policy, 20, 91-115.
46.
KreimerS. F. (2011). Pervasive image capture and the First Amendment: Memory, discourse, and the right to record. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 159, 337-409.
McClurgA. J. (1995). Bringing privacy law out of the closet: A tort theory of liability for intrusions in public places. North Carolina Law Review, 73, 989-1088.
53.
Mesa v. City of New York (2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1097.
54.
MonterdeA.PostillJ. (2014). Mobile ensembles: The uses of mobile phones for social protest by Spain’s indignados. In GogginG.HjorthL. (Eds.), Routledge companion to mobile media (pp. 429-438). New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
Nader v. General Motors Corp. (1970), 255 N.E. 2d 765 (Ct. App. N.Y.).
56.
NissenbaumH. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.
57.
Ortiz v. City of New York (2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136897.
PicardR. G.ChonB. S. (2004). Managing competition through barriers to entry and channel availability in the changing regulatory environment. International Journal on Media Management, 6, 168-175.
62.
Potts v. City of Lafayette (1997), 121 F. 3d 1106 (7th Cir.).
63.
ProsserW. L. (1960). Privacy. California Law Review, 48, 383-423.
Sanders v. American Broadcasting Co. (1999), 978 P. 2d 67 (Cal.).
69.
SandomirR. (2015, May5). A live-streaming app steals a sport’s big night. The New York Times, p. B11.
70.
Schifano v. Greene County Greyhound Park, Inc. (1993), 624 So.2d 178 (Ala.).
71.
ShaneS. (2015, February16). F.A.A. acts to regulate drones used for business. The New York Times, p. A8.
72.
Shulman v. Group W Productions (1998), 955 P.2d 469 (Cal. Ct. App.).
73.
Smith v. City of Cumming (2000), 212 F. 3d 1332 (11th Cir.).
74.
SmollaR. (2002). Accounting for the slow growth of American Privacy Law. Nova Law Review, 27, 289-323.
75.
SoloveD. J. (2008). Understanding privacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76.
SoloveD. J.HartzogW. (2014). The FTC and the new common law of privacy. Columbia Law Review, 114, 583-676.
77.
StelterB. (2013, July1). From statehouse to YouTube, filibuster is a success. The New York Times, p. B1.
78.
StewartD. R. (2013). When retweets attack: Are Twitter users liable for republishing the defamatory tweets of others?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 233-247.
ThiererA. D. (2015). The Internet of things and wearable technology: Addressing privacy and security concerns without derailing innovation. Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, 21, 1-118.
WelplyJ. (2013). When, where and why the First Amendment protects the right to record police communications: A substantial interference guideline for determining the scope of the right to record and for revamping restrictive state wiretapping laws. Saint Louis Law Journal, 57, 1085-1110.
89.
WestinA. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York, NY: Atheneum.
