A Taxonomy of Privacy
2006 · paper · Law
Develops a taxonomy of privacy problems to replace a vague concept of privacy. It sorts privacy harms into groups, including information collection, processing and dissemination, to guide privacy law toward a more coherent framework.
Checked: PDF from zoo.cs.yale.edu, fetched 5 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
7 findings
Reference or label The text says "The Freedom of Information Act contains two exemptions", but fn 23 supports the second with "id. § 552b(c)(7) ... at open meetings", while fn 154 cites FOIA's law-enforcement privacy exemption as "5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C)".
- p. 7 text and fn 23
id. § 552b(c)(7) (exempting disclosure of “investigatory records compiled for law enforce-ment purposes
- p. 32 fn 154
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C).
- p. 7 Body text, first sentence, and footnote 23
The Freedom of Information Act contains two exemptions to protect against an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
- p. 7 Footnote 23
id. § 552b(c)(7) (exempting disclosure of “investigatory records compiled for law enforce-ment purposes that “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” at open meet-ings).
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: 5 U.S.C. § 552b is the Government in the Sunshine Act, not FOIA. Inside the paper, the gloss "at open meetings" in fn 23 and the different cite in fn 154 (§ 552(b)(7)(C)) both show that fn 23's second citation does not point to a FOIA exemption. Checked the p.7 text and fn 23 and the p.32 fn 154 on the images.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fn 58 cites "Federal Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 90-351, § 2520, 48 Stat. 1103", but fn 60 gives the same "Pub. L. No. 90-351" to the 1968 Act (82 Stat. 212, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522).
- p. 16 fn 58
Federal Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 90-351, § 2520, 48 Stat. 1103
- p. 16 fn 60
Pub. L. No. 90-351, ch. 119, 82 Stat. 212
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Both footnotes are on the p.16 image. Two different statutes, one from 1934 (48 Stat.) and one from 1968 (82 Stat.), carry the same public-law number, and § 2520 belongs to the 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 range of fn 60. Rests on outside knowledge for the correct number (Pub. L. No. 73-416, § 605), so only the authors can supply the fix.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fn 95 cites Nader v. General Motors as "225 N.E.2d 765, 767 (N.Y. 1970)".
- p. 22 fn 95
225 N.E.2d 765, 767 (N.Y. 1970).
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: Nader v. General Motors Corp. (N.Y. 1970) is reported at 255 N.E.2d 765, and volume 225 of N.E.2d dates from about 1967. The image shows "225" as printed. Nothing in the paper can settle this, so it is put to the authors.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D cmt. b" is dated "(1965)" in fn 158 but "(1977)" in fn 345, for the same quoted comment.
- p. 32 fn 158
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D cmt. b (1965).
- p. 62 fn 345
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D cmt. b (1977).
- p. 32 footnote 158
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D cmt. b (1965)
- p. 62 footnote 345
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652D cmt. b (1977)
Judge's note: Checked the images of fn 158 (p.32) and fn 345 (p.62). Both footnotes support the same Restatement language about giving further publicity to information already public. Fn 277 on p.52 also dates § 652D to 1977. A single provision cannot carry two dates, and the paper's own usage points to 1977.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fn 280 cites "5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(10) (2000) (prohibiting agencies from disclosing information about an individual without her prior written consent)", but fn 207 cites the same subsection for the requirement to "establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards".
- p. 52 fn 280
5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(10) (2000) (prohibiting agencies from dis-closing information about an individual without her prior written consent)
- p. 41 text and fn 207
5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(10) (2000).
- p. 52 footnote 280
Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(10) (2000) (prohibiting agencies from disclosing information about an individual without her prior written consent)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked the text at fn 207 (p.41) and fn 280 (p.52). The same subsection is cited for two different rules, and the fn 207 quotation is the safeguards language, so the fn 280 pinpoint is the inconsistent one. Rests on outside knowledge: the consent-based disclosure ban is § 552a(b).
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Baird all protect against what I call 'decisional interference'" lists the single case Eisenstadt v. Baird as two cases and leaves out Roe v. Wade.
- p. 78 Part D.2, first line of page 554
Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Baird all protect against what I call “deci-sional interference”
- p. 77 Part D.2, preceding paragraphs
In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court extended the reasoning in Griswold
- p. 78
Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Baird all protect against what I call
Judge's note: On p.77 (p.553) the paper discusses three cases in sequence: Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird and Roe v. Wade. P.78 (p.554) then opens with 'Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Baird' and goes straight on to Tribe's comment on Roe. The only other Baird in the paper is Baird v. State Bar of Arizona (around fn 120-122), a First Amendment case that is not discussed in this Part. The third name is evidently meant to be Roe. This is a wrong case label, not a wrong fact.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Stanley v. Georgia is cited as "394 U.S. 557 (1969)" (fn 460) and "Stanley, 394 U.S. at 564" (fn 463), but as "Stanley, 395 U.S. at 564" (fn 467) and "Stanley, 395 U.S. at 565" (fn 469).
- p. 80 fn 460 and fn 463
394 U.S. 557 (1969).
- p. 80 fn 467
Stanley, 395 U.S. at 564
- p. 81 fn 469
Stanley, 395 U.S. at 565.
- p. 80 Footnote 463
Stanley, 394 U.S. at 564.
Judge's note: The page images of p.80 (p.556) and p.81 (p.557) confirm both volume numbers. The short cites are to the same case, so the volume is inconsistent within the paper; the full citation gives 394.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
9 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Part D intro calls the second taxonomy group "networking" ("the harms of information collection, networking, and dis-semination"), but everywhere else the paper names it "information processing" (p.12 list, Figure 1).
- p. 72 Part D intro
Invasion harms differ from the harms of information collection, networking, and dis-semination
- p. 14 Figure 1
INFORMATION PROCESSING
- p. 72 Part D, opening paragraph
information collection, networking, and dis-semination
- p. 12 taxonomy overview
(1) information collection, (2) information processing, (3) information dissemination, and (4) invasion
Judge's note: Checked the page images. P.72 (p.548) reads 'information collection, networking, and dissemination'. P.12 lists '(2) information processing' and the Figure 1 heading is 'INFORMATION PROCESSING'. A search of the text finds 'networking' only once, here. The label is inconsistent with the paper's own taxonomy; it is a wording problem and the evident fix is 'processing'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo McCarthy treatise sections are written with a period in fn 3 ("§ 5.59") and fn 440 ("§ 5.10[A][2]") but with a colon in fn 384 ("§ 5:63").
- p. 3 fn 3
THE RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY AND PRIVACY § 5.59 (2d ed. 2005).
- p. 68 fn 384
1 MCCARTHY, supra note 3, § 5:63
- p. 77 fn 440
1 MCCARTHY, supra note 3, § 5.10[A][2]
Judge's note: Checked the crops for fns 3, 384 and 440: the formats are as quoted. Fn 440 sits inside a parenthetical quoting a court opinion, which may explain the different style there. The fn 3 vs fn 384 difference is a cosmetic inconsistency in the author's own citations, and the references can still be identified.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fn 23 has unbalanced quotation marks: "(exempting disclosure of “investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes that “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” at open meetings)" has two opening double quotes and one closing quote.
- p. 7 fn 23
purposes that “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” at open meet-ings)
- p. 7 Footnote 23
“investigatory records compiled for law enforce-ment purposes that “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” at open meet-ings)
Judge's note: The page image shows two opening double quotation marks and only one closing mark, so this is not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Stray space before a comma: "losing his job and friends , and being blacklisted from future employment."
- p. 27 Ullmann paragraph
losing his job and friends , and being blacklisted
Judge's note: The p.27 image shows the comma starting a new line with a space before it after "friends", so the defect is in the PDF and not only in the text layer.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling in fn 306: "had been known by hundereds of people in a variety of cities" (should be "hundreds").
- p. 55 fn 306
had been known by hundereds of people
- p. 55 fn 306
hundereds of people
- p. 55 footnote 306
hundereds of people in a variety of cities
Judge's note: The p.55 image shows "hundereds" with no [sic].
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "irrational judgment based on stereotypes of misinformation about diseases" looks like a slip for "stereotypes or misinformation".
- p. 55 first line of page 531
tional judgment based on stereotypes of misinformation about diseases.
- p. 55 first paragraph
irrational judgment based on stereotypes of misinformation about diseases
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The p.55 image shows "of". The sentence is contrasted with "rational judgments" in the next sentence, which supports reading two separate bases (stereotypes or misinformation). Only the authors can confirm the intended word.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The text has "as Joseph Izenberg argues" but its supporting fn 359 cites "Joseph Isenbergh, Blackmail From A to C".
- p. 64 text, first paragraph
for as Joseph Izenberg argues
- p. 64 fn 359
Joseph Isenbergh, Blackmail From A to C
- p. 64 body text
as Joseph Izenberg argues
- p. 64
as Joseph Izenberg argues, prohibiting a blackmailer compensation
Judge's note: The p.64 image shows "Izenberg" in the body and "Isenbergh" in fn 359. They are the same author and article, so the body-text spelling should match the citation.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 421 misspells 'undesirable' as "unde-sireable".
- p. 74 fn 421
undesireable
Judge's note: The page image of p.74 (p.550), fn 421, reads 'dangerous and unde-sireable during the Middle Ages'. Cosmetic misspelling.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 476 has no closing period: "Id. at 572 (quoting MODEL PENAL CODE § 213.2 cmt. 2 (1980))".
- p. 81 fn 476
Id. at 572 (quoting MODEL PENAL CODE § 213.2 cmt. 2 (1980))
Judge's note: The p.81 page image shows fn 476 ending with '))' and no period, while the neighbouring footnotes end with periods. Cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)