000041985 000__ 01495cam\a22003255i\4500 000041985 001__ 41985 000041985 003__ SzGeWIPO 000041985 005__ 20240708145854.0 000041985 008__ 200622s2018\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d 000041985 022__ $$a0736-7694 000041985 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda 000041985 041__ $$aeng 000041985 1001_ $$aForrest, David A. 000041985 24500 $$aMunicipal WI-FI and the Third-Party Doctrine :$$bRethinking an Antiquated Framework 000041985 264_1 $$a[New York City, New York] :$$bYeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,$$c2018. 000041985 330__ $$a31 pages 000041985 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent 000041985 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia 000041985 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier 000041985 520__ $$aThis Note begins by briefly surveying the Fourth Amendment’s application in landmark modern-era Supreme Court cases and the accompanying issue of what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. Next, Section I.C. introduces the “third-party doctrine” which states, in brief, that there is no Fourth Amendment interest in information knowingly and voluntarily revealed to “third parties.” Section I.D.will introduce the state-action doctrine. Section II examines whether the New York City government’s actions in hiring CityBridge to administer the LinkNYC program were sufficientto implicate the state-action doctrine and trigger the Fourth Amendment’s protections. Section III examines whether the LinkNYC Program implicates the third-party doctrine. 000041985 525__ $$aPublished in : Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law, vol. 36, no. 2 (2018) 000041985 650_0 $$aPrivacy 000041985 650_0 $$aLinkNYC 000041985 85641 $$yView this resource$$uhttp://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/FORREST_NOTE.pdf 000041985 904__ $$aJournal article 000041985 980__ $$aBIB