Construct · 5 fields · 11 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one word, five constructs Nearest construct by meaningclientcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to privilege is client.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
A rule that lets a party withhold otherwise relevant evidence. The attorney–client privilege protects a confidential communication between a client and a lawyer made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; Wigmore's eight-part statement of the elements, which Hazard traced to its uncertain origins in 1978, remains the version courts recite. Upjohn extended it in 1981 to communications between corporate counsel and any employee whose information counsel needs. The work-product doctrine is a separate shield: Hickman v. Taylor held in 1947 that a lawyer's trial preparation is protected from discovery, and Rule 26(b)(3) codified it, with opinion work product nearly absolute. Rule 502 fixed in 2008 when an inadvertent disclosure waives either protection. Privilege here is an exception to the duty to produce, held by the client, and lost by waiver.[1][2][4][3]
The immunity of legislators from being questioned elsewhere for what they say and do in the legislative process. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 fixed it as freedom of speech in Parliament, and Article I of the United States Constitution carried it over as the Speech or Debate Clause. Gravel v. United States held in 1972 that the clause covers a senator's aides as well as the senator, but only for acts that are part of the deliberative process, so it did not reach arrangements to publish the Pentagon Papers privately. Reinstein and Silverglate argued in 1973 that the clause is best read as a separation-of-powers structure rather than a personal perquisite. Privilege here belongs to the institution, protects the legislator from the executive and the courts, and cannot be waived by an individual member.[5][6]
A President's authority to keep communications with advisers from Congress and the courts. United States v. Nixon recognised the privilege in 1974 as implied by the separation of powers and grounded in the need for candid advice, and in the same opinion held it qualified: a generalised interest in confidentiality yields to a specific need for evidence in a criminal trial, and the tapes had to be produced. Berger argued in 1974 that the privilege was a constitutional myth with no textual basis; the Court disagreed on existence and agreed on limits. Privilege here is a claim by one branch against another, tested by balancing rather than by elements, and it protects the office, not the person.[7][8]
Advantages a person receives because of a social category they belong to, without having earned them and usually without noticing them. McIntosh introduced the image in 1989 of an invisible knapsack of unearned assets that white people can count on cashing in each day, and listed the daily conditions she could take for granted that her colleagues of colour could not. Case, Iuzzini, and Hopkins framed the research programme in 2012 as the study of systems of privilege, how they intersect, how awareness of them is produced, and what interventions follow. The construct is relational and systemic: it exists only in contrast to a disadvantaged group, and its defining feature is that the holder does not experience it as anything at all.[9][10]
The set of operations a principal (a user, a process, a role) is permitted to perform. Saltzer and Schroeder's 1975 design principles include least privilege: every program and every user should operate using the smallest set of permissions necessary to complete the job, so that an error or a compromise does the least damage. Privilege escalation is the attack that violates it, a principal obtains permissions it was not granted, either upward to an administrator or sideways to another user. Privilege here is a discrete, enumerable grant recorded in an access-control system, and the whole point is that it should be small.[11]
Next
Combine items across the privilege scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct