Search results

[…] for email, social m e- dia, and searc hing; shopping with a credit, debit, or “customer lo yalty” card; banking or applying for credit; tra veling by plane; receiving medical treatment at a technologically advanced hospital; and receiving electricity through a “smart meter .” 3 II. Big data, for all its technological complexity, springs […]

[…] use geolocation technologies to pinpoint the movement of  themselves and others in real time. 88   Meanwhile, new digital translation tools and biometric tech‐ nologies are becoming widely available to consumers. Tools such  as Google Goggles, available for many smartphones, let users  snap pictures of anything they see and have it identified by  Google’s search engine, with the results provided almost instantly  to the user. 89 Eventually, these technologies will merge with  “wearable computing” technologies that will, for example, let the  buttons on our shirts feed live streams of our daily movements  and interactions into social networking sites and databases. 90 Peo‐ 85. Id.  86. J ONATHAN  ZITTRAIN , THE  FUTURE OF THE  INTERNET —A ND  HOW TO  STOP  IT  221 (2008) (” Cheap sensors generatively wired to cheap networks with cheap pro‐ cessors are transforming the nature of privacy.”).  87. J OHN  PALFREY  & URS  GASSER , BORN  DIGITAL : UNDERSTANDING THE  FIRST  GENERATION OF  DIGITAL  NATIVES  62 (2008) (“Young people are turning to mobile  devices in droves. They use them to post more information about themselves and  their friends into the ether.”); Jennifer Valentino‐DeVries, The Economics of Surveil‐ lance, W ALL  ST.  J. D IGITS  BLOG  (Sept. 28, 2012, 10:30 PM),  http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/09/28/the‐economics‐of=surveillance/?mod=WSJBlog  (quoting Col. Lisa Shay, a professor of electrical engineering at the U.S. Military  Academy at West Point, who notes that “nowadays cellphones are sensors,” and  […]

[…] Consu mer Privacy Surveys Don’t Tell Us (June 2001) (unpublished manuscript), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=299930 (“[P]rivacy surveys in particular . . . suffer from the ‘talk is cheap’ problem. It costs a consumer nothing to express a desire for federal law to protect privacy. But if such law became a 2013 ] BENEFIT -COST […]

[…] no search occurs when police observe, from navigable airspace, the fenced-in curtilage of the home; 27 after all, the Court reasoned, members of the public in a plane or on a double- decker bus could have seen the same thing the police did. 28 Similar reasoning led the Court to decide that people assume […]

  1966 THE EU-U.S. PRIVACY COLLISION: A TURN TO INSTITUTIONS AND PROCEDURES Pa u l M . S c h w a r t z ∗ I.  INTRODUCTION   Internet scholarship in the United States generally concentrates on  how decisions made in this country about copyright law, network neu- trality, and other policy areas shape cyberspace. 1  In one important as- pect of the evolving Internet, however, a comparative focus is indis- pensable.  Legal forces outside the United States have significantly  shaped the governance of information privacy, a highly important as- pect of cyberspace, and one involving central issues of civil liberties.   The EU has played a major role in international decisions involving  information privacy, a role that has been bolstered by the authority of  EU member states to block data transfers to third party nations, in- cluding the United States. 2  The European Commission’s release in late January 2012 of its  proposed “General Data Protection Regulation” (the Proposed Regula- tion) provides a perfect juncture to assess the ongoing EU-U.S. privacy  collision. 3  An intense debate is now occurring about critical areas of  information policy, including the rules for lawfulness of personal pro- cessing, the “right to be forgotten,” and the conditions for data flows  between the EU and the United States.  This Article begins by tracing the rise of the current EU-U.S. pri- vacy status quo.  The European Commission’s 1995 Data Protection  Directive (the Directive) staked out a number of bold positions, includ- ing a limit on international data transfers to countries that lacked “ad- equate” legal protections for personal information. 4  The impact of the  […]

[…] the one hand, it produced great fortunes and technological innovation that made what had been impossible commonplace. These new innovations included factories, steam engines, railroads, cars, airplanes, cheap textiles, and shaped the modern world into a form that we (or at least our parents) could recognize. But on the other hand, the industrial revolution […]

[…] 154 (citing the example of Google voluntarily providing data to the NSA). 438 . See id. at 161 –62 (noting that the government sought user information from airlines after the September 11th attacks and from hotels and car rental agenc ies in 2003 to thwart terrorist threats against Las Vegas). 86 70 WASH. & […]

[…] such$ as$ IP$ addresses$ and$ the$ to/from$information$of$e`mail$addresses$is$not$protected$by$the$Fourth$Amendment).$139$See( generally$Orin$ S.$ Kerr,$The( Fourth( Amendment( and( New( Technologies:(Constitutional( Myths( and( the( Case( for( Caution,$ 102$ Mich.$ L.$ Rev.$ 801,$ 805,$ 857`87$(2004).$140$480$U.S.$340$(1987).$141$See(id.$at$343.$142$See(id.$at$355.$ 31$$evidence$ must$ rely$ on$ the$ Fourth$ Amendment.$ $ But$Krull$complicates$efforts$ to$ clarify$ Fourth$ Amendment$ law$ through$ suppression$ motions$by$ allowing$ courts$ to$ deny$ motions$ to$ suppress$ under$ the$ […]

[…] people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates.” Id. 07 – Hartzog Article.docx (Do Not Delete) 6/17/2013 1:55 PM 412 W ASHINGTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 88:385 These behavioral […]

[…] corporate privacy practices. 222 These concurrent developments brought business uses of consumer information under increased scrutiny, and, importantly, re -oriented the inquiry around questions of fairness and alignment with consumers’ expectations. This evolving understanding of privacy contrasts starkly with the static procedural requirements mandated by sectoral privacy statutes. 223 Furthermore, it reflects the normative […]