PogoWasRight.org

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

NJ: Judge misunderstood ‘John Doe’s’ privacy rights in Bridgegate, filing says

Posted on May 24, 2016June 26, 2025 by Dissent

Tim Darragh reports:

 A federal judge erred in ordering the public release of the names of the Bridgegate uninidicted co-conspirators, misunderstanding how the publicity would violate the individuals’ privacy, a lawyer for an anonymous unindicted co-conspirator said in a court filing Monday.

Jenny Kramer, a former prosecutor representing “John Doe,” the anonymous individual who federal prosecutors say is someone who either was allegedly involved in the Bridgegate plan or its coverup but not charged, asked the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the brief to keep his name secret.

Read more on NJ.com. Doe’s lawyer raised three arguments, but here’s the one that gave me pause:

Wigenton incorrectly ruled that the names of Bridgegate unindicted co-conspirators could be made public because they “had a diminished or non-existent right of privacy because of their public status and the media’s extensive coverage of Bridgegate,” the brief says. “But that reasoning simply misunderstands the nature of the ‘privacy’ right at issue, which is the right not to have one’s reputation and career needlessly ruined.”

No related posts.

Category: Court

Post navigation

← Defendant: Geek Squad Employee Was Paid FBI Informant, Searched Devices IllegallyIM
Google Allo a Clash of Privacy and Functionality →

2 thoughts on “NJ: Judge misunderstood ‘John Doe’s’ privacy rights in Bridgegate, filing says”

  1. Jordana Ari says:
    May 24, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    I think it’s a tough one . U r supposed to be innocent until proven guilty so i get why they want to keep names out of the media.
    However, if these were just regular person without any name notoriety, would they be given the same courtesy to release no names?

    I think the main issue for me is them using their influence to Still say private.

    ( and no i don’t think the media should be allowed in the courtroom. Its going to be such a f&$d up media cricus. But that is another issue)

  2. Jordana Ari says:
    May 24, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    I meant to say regular people. Not person

Comments are closed.

Now more than ever

Search

Contact Me

Email: info@pogowasright.org

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Trump administration is launching a new private health tracking system with Big Tech’s help
  • Attorney General James Takes Action to Protect Sensitive Personal Information of Tens of Millions of People
  • Searches of Your Private Data in the Cloud Amount to Illicit State Action
  • How a Tax Subpoena in Ohio Tests European Privacy Law
  • Cambodia moves to enact comprehensive data privacy law
  • White House ordered to restore Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood clinics
  • California Attorney General Announces $1.55M CCPA Settlement with Healthline.com

RSS Recent Posts on DataBreaches.net

  • WA: Cyber-attacks problem for small hospitals
  • Florida prison data breach exposes visitors’ contact information to inmates
  • Experian Wins Appeal to Send Data Breach Victim to Arbitration
  • ICANN sends breach notice to domain registrar Webnic about failure to deal with DNS abuse compliants properly
  • Canadian cybercriminal sentenced to a year in prison for NFT theft scheme
©2025 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.
Menu
  • About
  • Privacy