Your guide to the region's top events, mixed with some commentary about life, media, gossip and politics in Washington, DC.

Targeting Scalia’s Secrets

By Kashmir Hill   Published Thursday, June 04, 2009

There are a few things you may know about Antonin Scalia. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, he joined the nation’s highest court in 1986. He’s among the most conservative of the nine Supreme Court justices.

But what if you really dug into his life? Here are a few other things you’d discover about the 73-year-old justice if you scour the Internet and prepare a 15-page dossier on him:

Among friends, he goes by the nickname Nino. He has a big Catholic family, with nine children. His McLean home, bought in 1983 for $325,000, has quadrupled in value. He’s rumored to be a fan of Sex and the City after being seen chatting with Sarah Jessica Parker in New York. A.V. Ristorante—the Italian joint on DC’s New York Avenue that closed in 2007—was his favorite restaurant. Though he now often can be found at Tosca for lunch, he thinks it’s overpriced. He’s the funniest member of the Supreme Court; Ruth Bader Ginsburg says he’s the only justice who can reliably make her laugh.

But Scalia wasn’t making jokes when he discovered he was the target of a privacy invasion by a professor and 15 students at New York’s Fordham law school.

Justice Scalia unwittingly invited the invasion during a trip to New York in January. He follows the judicial philosophy of originalism, an adherence to the precise words of the Constitution as they were meant when written by the Founding Fathers. Because the Constitution doesn’t mention any “right to privacy,” Scalia is skeptical of that right and has indicated that he’s untroubled by online advertising technology that tracks a person’s Internet searches. Speaking at a January conference on privacy issues, he said, “Every single datum about my life is private? That’s silly.”

Fordham professor Joel Reidenberg saw that as a challenge. He had his information-privacy-law class “cyber-stalk” Scalia as a lesson in the availability of personal information online.

Reidenberg hoped the project would convince his students that lawmakers and adjudicators need to strengthen laws to safeguard privacy online. Invasion of privacy using online property records and free comprehensive-search databases such as Pipl.com can be directed at anyone, the professor argues.

The Scalia dossier is more than a dozen pages long and includes the justice’s home address, home phone number, favorite movies, and food preferences as well as his wife’s personal e-mail address and “photos of his lovely grandchildren.”

Scalia wasn’t pleased to learn that his quote had been used to justify the online investigation. Aggregation of such publicly available data is legal, but Scalia argued that such things shouldn’t be done—not for legal reasons but for moral ones. He said he stands by the remarks he made at the conference on privacy issues.

“I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law,” Scalia wrote in an e-mail to the legal blog Above the Law. “It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg’s exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.”

Reidenberg says he has no plans for the Scalia dossier. It’s on a password-protected site that only members of his class can access—for now.

This article first appeared in the June 2009 issue of The Washingtonian. For more articles from that issue, click here.   

More>> Capital Comment Blog | News & Politics | Society Photos  

Comments


Kash,

This is beneath you.

Reidenberg didn’t see it as a challenge in the "pistols at dawn" sense you suggest. He gave a similar assignment last year, with himself as the subject. You already know this because it has been reported on the blog you work for on a daily basis, Above the Law. A blog which you site without mentioning your affiliation, by the way.

Searching public websites is hardly cyber-stalking. You did the same thing for this article. The difference is that you made the results public, while Reidenberg only mentioned the exercise at a scholarly conference without revealing the results. Since Above the Law happened to be there, THEY, or should I say, you, wrote the existence of the project in order to stir up false controversy. Controversy which you are now magnifying and cashing a separate check for here.


"Invasion of privacy using online property records and free comprehensive-search databases such as Pipl.com can be directed at anyone, the professor argues."

How is that an argument? It’s an assertion of fact.

"Reidenberg says he has no plans for the Scalia dossier. It’s on a password-protected site that only members of his class can access—for now."

This is muckraking. You are saying that Reidenberg is threatening to make it public with your "--for now?" tag? Of course not, but you are bending over backwards to imply it. And why "Reidenberg SAYS he has no plans" and not "Reidenberg has no plans"?

You’re writing for print now, it seems. You should raise your standards above the self-identified "tabloid" style of Above the Law.

Doesn’t Washingtonian have editors? Beware bloggers bearing conflicts of interest, purple prose, and libel.

Posted by: What a crock, Jun 08, 2009 07:47:26 PM

Maybe the Justice needs to look into getting Reputation Defenders.

Posted by: Just a lonely loo, Jun 08, 2009 03:16:03 PM

Since when are simple Google searches considered "cyber-stalking." Talk about tabloid journalism.

The class lesson is nothing compared to the data mining that the marketing industry and government do every day on normal people. Scalia doesn’t have a clue. Seems like his comments show a complete lack of judgement.


Posted by: Anonymous, Jun 08, 2009 07:45:20 AM

On a more lowly level than that of a Supreme Court Justice, young people are learning all the time that their job search may be spoiled by some inadvertent or inebriated act which is digitally accessible. The old adage that one does not tell tales out of school is not something search engines honor.

Posted by: Candadai Tirumalai, Jun 05, 2009 06:51:18 AM

Post a comment

Feel free to leave a comment or ask a question. Because of the prevalence of spam, we ask that you fill out the code in the image below to help us eliminate spam comments. By posting here, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older. Washingtonian.com reserves the right to remove or edit content once posted.

Find A ...
Find A Restaurant







  1. Only show Delivery
    Only show Kid Friendly
    Only show Late Night
    Only show Party Space
    Only show Weekend Brunch
Find Events




Find A Happy Hour





  1. search_finda.gif
Find A Spa




  1. search_finda.gif
Find a Home





  1. search_finda.gif
  2. Powered by  
Find A Hotel


  1.   


  2. Reviewed by Washingtonian
  3. Kid Friendly     Valet Parking
    Handicap Accessible    

  4. Childcare
    WiFi
    Pet Friendly
    Bar/Lounge/Dining
    Airport Shuttle
    Salon/Spa
    Swimming Pool
    Fitness Room
    On-site Drycleaning
    Meeting Rooms
    Golf
    Tennis Courts
    Game Room
  5. search_finda.gif
Newsletter Signup
  1. Bridal Party
  2. Dining Out
  3. Kliman Online
  4. Shop Around
  5. Where & When
  6. Learn more sign_up.gif
 

Can DC’s New Digital News Operations Replace the Once-Great Newspaper Bureaus?

Gone are the robust bureaus for the Los Angeles Times, Newhouse News, and other once-healthy news organizations. Digital media bureaus now are taking their places with as many reporters and plenty of swagger. more

Where & When: What to Do This Weekend

Sip some Beaujolais Nouveau, check out the Terra Cotta warriors, see a vintage murder thriller, and more this weekend. more