45. The term was coined by Ruth Gavison ,“Privacy and the Limits of Law,” Yale Law Journal 89(1980), pp. 421-471.
46. Prosser(note 32, above), p. 389; see also William L. Prosser , Handbook of the Law of Torts, 4th Edition(St. Paul , MN : West Publishing Co., 1971), p. 804. The four torts are: 1. intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs; 2. public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff; 3. publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; and 4. appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness.
47. Prosser(note 32, above), p. 423. See Jonathan Kahn,“Privacy as a Legal Principle of Identity Maintenance,” Seton Hall Law Review 33(2003), pp. 375-376.
48. Kalven(note 15, above), p. 328.“I suspect that fascination with the great Brandeis trade mark, excitement over the law at a point of growth, and appreciation of privacy as a key value have combined to dull the normal critical sense of judges and commentators and have caused them not to see the pettiness of the tort they
have sponsored.”
49. In Wainwright v. Home Office(note 38, above):“The need in the United States to break down the concept of‘invasion of privacy’ into a number of loosely-linked torts must cast doubt upon the value of any high-level generalisation which can perform a useful function in enabling one to deduce the rule to be applied in a concrete case. English law has so far been unwilling, perhaps unable, to formulate any such high-level principle.” The opinion explicitly cites Prosser’s response to the Warren-Brandeis thesis in paragraphs 16-17.
50. Thomson(note 39, above), p. 287.
51. Edward Bloustein,“Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity : An Answer to Dean Prosser,” New York University Law Review 39(1964), pp. 962-1007. The Quotation is at p. 971; the quotation at the end of the passage is from Warren and Brandeis (note 16, above), p. 198.
52. Prosser(note 32. above), p. 422.
53.“The identification of the social value which underlies the privacy cases will also help to determine the character of the development of new legal remedies for threats posed by some of the aspects of modern technology. Criminal statues which are intended to curb[eavesdropping] can be assimilated to the common law forms of protection against intrusion upon privacy if the social interest served by the common law is conceived of as the preservation of individual dignity”; Bloustein (note 45, abive), pp. 1005-1006.