Pol 153 - ACLU Wessler Privacy Rights

Nathan Freed Wessler (https://www.aclu.org/bio/nathan-freed-wessler) is Deputy Director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, and he also successfully argued at the Supreme Court against warrantless access to cell phone location information (Carpenter v. US, 2018). Nate joined the Pol 153 class to discuss Carpenter, looming threats to privacy, political advocacy for new legislation, and advice for students interested in working in rights-related fields.

Question timeline:

0:19-1:33 -- (Introduction) Nate Wessler, ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project

1:40-2:10 -- (Frivolity) Nate’s missing SCOTUS Quill

 2:14-5:20 -- (Litigation) Experience of arguing at SCOTUS

 5:32-9:22 -- (Career) Nate’s path from undergraduate to ACLU litigator

 9:34-12:10 -- (Litigation) Why narrow argument re: 3rd party doctrine?

 12:22-14:50 -- (Litigation) Why weren't there more liberal concurring opinions?

 14:55-17:50 -- (Doctrine) Should SCOTUS reconsider the Katz doctrine (i.e. ask about a “reasonable expectation of  privacy”?)

 17:55-21:00 -- (Big picture) What is the biggest threat today to 4th Amendment protections?

 21:04-24:58 -- (Reproductive Rights) Privacy threats of new state anti-abortion laws post-Dobbs

 25:12-28:08 -- (Big Picture) Why should non-criminals care about surveillance?

 28:10-32:06 -- (Legislation) Why is there such difficulty in passing laws that protect privacy? (E.g. update ECPA, pass The 4th Amendment is not for Sale bill)

 32:10-35:25 -- (Legislation/Litigation) When to focus on legislation, when on litigation

 35:26-40:00 -- (Culture) Why are so many Americans so hyper concerned about privacy?

 40:02-43:20 -- (Speech + Privacy) What tensions between free speech and privacy values? How balance them?

 43:25-46:30 -- (Future) What’s next? What case should we be watching? (https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-united-states-2/)

 46:35-48:45 -- (Career) Advice for: 1) students interested in law school, 2) students NOT  interested in law but in rights