The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 35-36

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 35... ... 35 The states of Arkansas, Alabama, California, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Washington and the District of Columbia are among the jurisdictions that recognize a common law right to privacy. However, New York492 and Virginia493 do not recognize a common law right to privacy.494 Some courts have adopted the Restatement of Torts (Second) Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... 36 media."501 For a claim to be actionable, the disclosure must have revealed, for instance, "‘unpleasant or disgraceful or humiliating illnesses' or ‘hidden physical or psychiatric problems.'"502 In Yunker v. Pandora Media, Inc.,503 the court dismissed plaintiff's claims for public disclosure of private facts and intrusion upon seclusion, discussed below, because Pandora's disclosure or use of his PII was not "offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person or highly offensive."504 In Lake v. Read the entire page →

From page 35...

... 35 The states of Arkansas, Alabama, California, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Washington and the District of Columbia are among the jurisdictions that recognize a common law right to privacy. However, New York492 and Virginia493 do not recognize a common law right to privacy.494 Some courts have adopted the Restatement of Torts (Second)

Read the entire page →

From page 36...

... 36 media."501 For a claim to be actionable, the disclosure must have revealed, for instance, "‘unpleasant or disgraceful or humiliating illnesses' or ‘hidden physical or psychiatric problems.'"502 In Yunker v. Pandora Media, Inc.,503 the court dismissed plaintiff's claims for public disclosure of private facts and intrusion upon seclusion, discussed below, because Pandora's disclosure or use of his PII was not "offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person or highly offensive."504 In Lake v.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.