| [1] | 参见孔子：《论语》。意指不当看的不看，不当听的不听。
|
| [2] | 例如，什么样的利益属于隐私利益？某些情形是否值得引发隐私权讨论？妻子捉奸侵害了二奶的“隐私利益”？行贿犯罪黑名单的公布可能侵犯罪犯的隐私权？见王鑫等：“妻子捉奸反要向‘二奶，道歉”，http：//www．gmw．cn/01 wzb/2005—08/28/content_296004．htm，2006年9月17日访问；以及廖卫华：“全国行贿犯罪黑名单联网涉及教育等5领域”，http：//china．eastday．com/eastday/node81741/node81762/node110002/userobjectlai1763173．html，2006年9月17日访问。
|
| [3] | See Samuel D．Warren & Louis Brandies，The Right to Privacy，4 Harv．L．Rev．193（1890）．
|
| [4] | Black’s Law Dictionary，1350（2004）．
|
| [5] | “……now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life，——the right to be let alone．”Samuel D．Warren & Louis Brandies，The Right to Privacy，4 Harv．L．Rev．193（1890）．
|
| [6] | Doe v．Bolton，410 U．S．179，213（1973）．
|
| [7] | See Samuel D．Warren & Louis Brandies，The Right to Privacy，4 Harv．L．Rev．193，196（1890）．
|
| [8] | See Richard A．Posner，The Economics of Justice，272—273（1981）．
|
| [9] | See Alan F．Westin，Privacy and Freedom，32（1967）．
|
| [10] | Alan F．Westin，Privacy and Freedom，7（1967）．
|
| [11] | Black’s Law Dictionary，1233（2004）．
|
| [12] | Jerry Kang，Information Privacy in Cyberspace Transactions，50 Stan．L．Rev．1193，1202—1203（1998）．
|
| [13] | “This right of privacy，…… is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy．”Roe v．Wade，410 U．S．113，153（1973）．
|
| [14] | See Paul v．Davis，424 U．S．693，713（1976）．
|
| [15] | Sheri A．Alpert，Privacy and Intelligent Highways：Finding the Right of Way，11 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech．L．J．97，105（1995）．
|
| [16] | See Alan F．Westin，Privacy and Freedom，31（1967）．
|
| [17] | Richard H．McAdams，Tying Privacy In Knotts：Beeper Monitoring and Collective Fourth Amendment Rights，71 Va．L．Rev．297，322（1985）．
|
| [18] | “The right to privacy，then，protects the individual’s interest in becoming，being，and remaining a person．”Jeffrey H．Reiman，Privacy，Intimacy，and Personhood，in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy：An Anthology，300，314（Ferdinand David Schoeman ed．，1984）．
|
| [19] | “Intimate relationships simply could not exist if we did not continue to insist on privacy for them．”Robert S．Gerstein．Intimacy and Privacy，in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy：An Anthology，265（Ferdinand David Schoeman ed．，1984）．
|
| [20] | James Rachels，Why Privacy is Important，in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy：An Anthology，290，292 （Ferdinand David Schoeman ed．，1984）．
|
| [21] | “Solitude is imperative，……Personality develops from within．”United States v．White，401 U．S．745，763（1971）．
|
| [22] | Samuel D．Warren & Louis Brandies，The Right to Privacy，4 Harv．L．Rev．193，196—197（1890）．
|
| [23] | “Privacy makes possible individuality，and thus，freedom．”Robert S．Peck，The Right to Be Left Alone，15 Hum．Rts．26，27（1987）．“The purposes of privacy are the promotion of liberty，autonomy，selfhood，human relations，and furthering the existence of a free society．”Robert S．Peck，Extending The Constitutional Right To Privacy In The New Technological Age，12 Hofstra L．Rev．893，899（1984）．
|
| [24] | 在欧穆斯蒂德案中，欧穆斯蒂德是一大型企业的老总，他违法向加拿大大量进口酒类，并将其销售到华盛顿州。联邦禁酒业委员会怀疑其非法大量进口、储藏、出售酒类，并设法对其进行调查。由于欧穆斯蒂德家中安装有电话设备，并在户外连接有电话线。于是几名联邦禁酒工作人员利用屋外的电话线对其进行电话窃听。联邦最高法院认为，窃听器是安装在屋外的电话线上的，连着电话机的电话线不在其住宅内部，不属于他屋子的一部分，政府只是窃听屋外电线而并没有实施任何物理性侵入到宪法保护的区域——住宅，因而政府的监听行为并不构成对其财产权上的侵犯，因此不能援引宪法第四修正案认为构成隐私权的侵犯。因为“第四修正案本身表达的就是物质性事物——人、房子、他的文件或他的动产（The Amendment itself shows that the search is to be of material things——the person，the house，his papers or his effects．）”See Olmstead v．United States，277 U．S．438，464（1928）。
|
| [25] | 在凯茨案中，联邦调查局发现凯茨有涉嫌赌博的迹象。于是，在没有获得合法令状的情况下，将电子窃听器安装于凯茨经常打电话的公用电话亭外面。凯茨在公用电话亭里拨打电话从洛杉矶到迈阿密以及波士顿，传递赌博讯息。通过该窃听器，政府机关获取了凯茨谈话的全部内容，并用以作为认定凯茨赌博的证据。See Katz v．United States，389 U．S．347（1967）．
|
| [26] | “the Fourth Amendment applies to”intangibles，“such as conversation．”Katz v．United States，389 U．S．347，371（1967）．
|
| [27] | See Silverman v．United States，365 U．S．505（1961）．
|
| [28] | See Olmstead v．United States，277 U．S．438（1928）．
|
| [29] | Katz v．United States，389 U．S．347，352（1967）．
|
| [30] | Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy，The right to privacy，323（1995）．
|
| [31] | See Charles Weiss，The Coming Technology of Knowledge Discovery：A Final Blow To Privacy Protection？2004 U．Ill．J．L．Tech．& Pol’y 253，255（2004）．
|
| [32] | See Dow Chemical Co．v．United States，476 U．S．227（1986）．
|
| [33] | United States v．Knotts，460 U．S．276，281（1983）．
|
| [34] | United States v．Karo，468 U．S．705，715（1984）．
|
| [35] | See Ric Simmons，From Katz to Kyllo：A Blueprint for Adapting the Fourth Amendment to Twenty—First Century Technologies，53 Hastings L．J．1332（2002）．
|
| [36] | “The use of artificial means to illuminate a darkened area simply does not constitute a search，and thus triggers no Fourth Amendment protection．”Texas v．Brown，460 U．S．730，740（1983）．
|
| [37] | Dow Chemical Co．v．United States，476 U．S．227，238（1986）
|
| [38] | See Katz v．United States，389 U．S．347，351（1967）．
|
| [39] | See Smith v．Maryland，442 U．S．735（1979）．
|
| [40] | See California v．Ciraolo，476 U．S．207，213—14（1986）．
|
| [41] | United States v．Dunn，480 U．S．294，301（1987）．
|
| [42] | United．States v．Knotts，460 U．S．276，281（1983）．
|
| [43] | California v．Ciraolo，476 U．S．207，（1986）．
|
| [44] | Dow Chemical Co．v．United States，476 U．S．227，238（1986）．
|
| [45] | Dow Chemical Co．v．United．States，476 U．S．227，251（1986）．
|
| [46] | “What a person knowingly exposes to the public，even in his own home or office，is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection．”Katz v．United States，389 U．S．347，351（1967）．
|
| [47] | See Ric Simmons，The Powers And Pitfalls of Technology：Technology—Enhanced Surveillance By Law Enforcement Officials，60 N．Y．U．Ann．Surv．Am．L．711，729（2005）．
|
| [48] | “The physical characteristics of a person’s voice，its tone and manner，as opposed to the content of a specific conversation，are constantly exposed to the public．Like a man’s facial characteristics，or handwriting，his voice is repeatedly produced for others to hear．No person can have a reasonable expectation that others will not know the sound of his voice，any more than he can reasonably expect that his face will be a mystery to the world．”See United States v．Dionisio，410 U．S．1，14（1973）．
|
| [49] | “Handwriting，like speech，is repeatedly shown to the public，and there is no more expectation of privacy in the physical characteristics of a person’s script than there is in the tone of his voice．”See United States v．Mara，410 U．S．19，21（1973）．
|
| [50] | “Fingerprinting involves none of the probing into an individual’s private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search．”See Davis v．Mississippi，394 U．S．721，727（1969）．
|
| [51] | See Dow Chemical Co．v．United States，476 U．S．227，232（1986）．
|
| [52] | Hoffa v．United States，385 U．S．293（1966）．
|
| [53] | See United States v．White，401 U．S．745（1971）．
|
| [54] | James J．Tomkovicz，Technology And The Threshold of The Fourth Amendment：A Tale of Two Futures，72 Miss．L．J．317，369—370（2002）．
|
| [55] | See United States v．Miller，425 U．S．435（1976）．
|
| [56] | See California v．Greenwood，486 U．S．35（1988）．
|
| [57] | See Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc．of N．Y．，Inc．v．Village of Stratton，536 U．S．150，166（2002）．
|
| [58] | See Kyllo v．United States，533 U．S．27，34（2001）．
|
| [59] | “The Fourth Amendment protects people，not places．”Katz v．United States，389 U．S．347，351（1967）．
|
| [60] | James J．Tomkovicz，Technology And The Threshold of The Fourth Amendment：A Tale of Two Futures，72 Miss．L．J．317，432（2002）．
|
| [61] | See Lawrence Lessig，Free Culture，1—3（2004）．
|
| [62] | “It would be foolish to contend that the degree of privacy secured to citizens by the Fourth Amendment has been entirely unaffected by the advances of technology．”Kyllo v．United States，533 U．S．27，33—34（2001）．
|
| [63] | Ric Simmons：From Katz to Kyllo：A Blueprint for Adapting the Fourth Amendment to Twenty—First Century Technologies，53 HASTINGS L．J．1303，1332（2002）．
|
| [64] | Oral Argument at 23—24，Kyllo v．United States，533 U．S．27（2001）．
|
| [65] | 在凯洛案的审理过程中，有法官提出假设，如果当今社会已是一个热影像器非常普遍、人手5块钱一个的世界，那么这种情况是否会改变社会对隐私的合理期待。瑞克·斯蒙教授指出，从凯茨测试（Katz Test）的角度来看，如此重大的社会变化无疑将改变凯洛案的审判结果。See Ric Simmons，Note，From Katz to Kyllo：A Blueprint for Adapting the Fourth Amendment to Twenty—first Century Technologies，53 HASTINGS L．J．1303，1334 n．142（2002）．
|
| [66] | 1946年，美国北卡罗莱纳州的一些农民因为军用飞机常常低飞于其上空而使鸡受惊乱飞不断撞死于墙上，因而起诉到法院，要求飞机在没有他们的允许下不得飞越他们土地上空。因为财产法规定，他们的土地权延伸至无限上空，而飞机的飞越侵犯了他们的财产，因而要求法院判令其停止侵害。联邦最高法院的大法官道格拉斯（Douglas）则用简洁的话否定了这个今天看起来非常荒诞而当时却非常真实的请求：“常识告诉我们这个想法是错误的。”判词原文如下：“（The）doctrine has no place in the modern world．The air is a public highway，as Congress has d．Were that not true，every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits．Common sense revolts at the idea．To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways，seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest，and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim．”United States v．Causby，328 U．S．256，261（1946）．
|
| [67] | “whether technology has sufficiently changed society such that the area（or item）in question is now one that is considered”public“in modern society．”“courts must not consider changes in technology，but rather how technology changes society．”See Ric Simmons，From Katz to Kyllo：A Blueprint for Adapting the Fourth Amendment to Twenty—first Century Technologies，53 HASTINGS L．J．1303，1335（2002）．
|
| [68] | 如United States v．Penny—Feeney，773 F．Supp．220（D．Haw．1991）；United States v．Robinson，62 F．3d 1325（11th Cir．1995）；United States v．Pinson，24 F．3d 1056（8th Cir．1994）．
|
| [69] | 如United States v．Cnsumano，83 F．3d 1247（10th Cir．1996）；State v．Young，867 P．2d 593（Wash．1994）；Kyllo v．United States 533 U．S．27（2001）．
|
| [70] | “no revelation of intimate，even definitive，detail within the house was detectable；there was merely a gross，nondiscrete bright image indicating the heat emitted from the residence．”United States v．Robinson，62 F．3d 1325（11th Cir．1995）．
|
| [71] | See United States v．Penny—Feeney，773 F．Supp．220（D．Haw．1991）．
|
| [72] | See California v．Greenwood，486 U．S．35（1988）．
|
| [73] | See United States v．Place，462 U．S．696（1983）．
|
| [74] | “Just as an odor escapes a compartment or building and is detected by the sense—enhancing instrument of a canine sniff，so also does heat escape a home and is detected by the …（thermal imager）．”United States v．Pinson，24 F．3d 1056（8th Cir．1994）．
|
| [75] | It“do，in fact，reveal intimate details regarding activities occurring within the sanctity of the home，the place desrving the utmost protection pursuant to the Fourth Amendment．”Commonwealth v．Gindlesperger，743 A．2d 898（Pa．1999）．
|
| [76] | See State v．Young，867 P．2d 593（Wash．1994）．
|
| [77] | “Because the imager lacks the precision of the dog sniff，we should not extend Place to a110w the warrantless use of thermal imagers upon a home．”United States v．Cusumano，83 F．3d 1247（10th Cir．1996）．
|
| [78] | See Kyllo v．United States，533 U．S．27，35，43（2001）．
|
| [79] | “Use of such imaging without a warrant was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment——as such a use involved obtaining，by sense—enhancing technology that was not in general public use，information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area．”Kyllo v． United States，533 U．S．27（2001）．
|
| [80] | “Any physical invasion of the structure of the home，”by even a fraction of an inch，“was too much．”Kyllo v．United States 533 U．S．27，37（2001）．
|
| [81] | See Kyllo v．United States 533 U．S．27，38（2001）．
|
| [82] | “In any event，putting aside its lack of clarity，this criterion is somewhat perverse because it seems likely that the threat to privacy will grow，rather than recede，as the use of intrusive equipment becomes more readily available．”Kyllo v．United States 533 U．S．27，47（2001）．
|
