Search results

[…] purely  domestic  calls)  is  to  fac ilitate  “network  analy- sis”  presumably  for  purposes  of  relational  sur veill ance.42  The  NSA’s  programs  are  the  subject  of  the  Electronic  Frontier   Foundation’s  law- suit  against  AT&T. 43  The  suit  alleges  that  AT&T  broke  the  law  when  it  provided  the  government  access  both  to  call  content   […]

[…] percent of websites that mentioned a top 50 brand (as determined by the 2000 FT rankings) had a web bug. Online privacy advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation voiced early ob jections to marketers’ use of web bugs because of this intentional invisibility (Smith, 1999). Recital 24 of the Privacy Directive explicitly says […]

[…] technology also present an opportunity to improve pri- vacy, particularly online. *810 Table of Contents Introduction 810 I. The Instrumentalist Conception of Technology 817 II. A New Frontier In Privacy And Technology Scholarship 825 A. The Rise of the Social Interface 827 1. Computer Interfaces, Generally 829 114 PENNSTLR 809 Page 1 114 Penn […]

[…] 255 . See Solove, supra note 245 . 256 . See Kevin Bankston, Facebook’s Ne w Privacy Changes: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly , ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION , Dec. 9, 2009, archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5wlrf4jsk (commenting on Facebook’s privacy changes throughout the latter months of 2009) . 257 . See Bobbie Johnson, Priv […]

[…] censorshi p in that country .29 Similarly, an anonymous ISP in Pakistan provided 23 Burnett, Sam, and Nick Feamster. “Maki ng Sense of Internet Censorship: A New Frontier for Internet Measurement,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review , Vol. 43, No. 3, July 2013, accessed August 11, 2015, http://www.sigcomm.org/sites/default/files/ccr/papers/2013/July/2500098 -2500111.pdf . 24 Wilde, Tim, “Knock […]

[…] added); see also id. § 1681b(a)(3)(A)–(E). For an account of other limitations of the FCRA, see Joel R. Reidenberg, Privacy in the Information Economy: A Fortress or Frontier for Individual Rights?, 44 F ED. COMM . L.J. 195, 210–13 (1992). 57. O FFICE OF THE GEN. COUNSEL , NAT’L SEC. LAW UNIT , GUIDANCE […]

[…]   86 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Automated Targ eting System, System of Records, 72 Fed. Reg.  43650-02 (Aug. 6, 2007), 2007 WL 2227240 (F.R.) (20 07); Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  Pattern Analysis and Information Collection (ICEPIC ) System, System of Records, 73 Fed. Reg. 48117-01  (Aug. 18, 2008), 2008 WL 3821244 (F.R.) (2008); Fed eral Emergency Management Agency, National  Emergency Family Registry and Locator System System  of Records, 74 Fed. Reg. 48767-01 (Sep. 24,  2009), 2009 WL 3028107 (F.R.) (2009); U.S. Secret S ervice Non-Criminal Investigation Information  System of Records, 74 Fed. Reg. 45088-01 (Aug. 31,  2009), 2009 WL 2703831 (F.R.) (2009); U.S. Secret  Service Criminal Investigation Information System,  74 Fed. Reg. 45087-01 (Aug. 31, 2009), 2009 WL  2703830 (F.R.) (2009).  87 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2).      month for comments (and it is unclear how many were  submitted). One of the five  SORNs examined received a strikingly unusual 641 co mments 88; on further research, it  became clear that the Electronic  Frontier Foundatio n had widely publicized the issuance  of this SORN, which became a cause for privacy acti vists. The other SORNs, however,  elicited little or no response, or provided meaning less time for comments. 89  i.   DHS Exemptions: Elimination of Privacy Act requirem ents,  except restrictions on dissemination    The DHS subagencies examined herein use SORNs to o pt out of the Privacy Act  with the largest possible number of exemptions unde r the general exemptions category.  Remember that even though an agency may qualify for  a general exemption, they must  still individually justify their reasons for claimi ng each of the exemptions. These DHS  subagencies also, however, redundantly claim specif ic exemptions, even though these  overlap with the general exemptions claimed.    The five DHS SORNs examined apply to a variety of  records kept by a variety of  […]

[…] simil ar set of statutory principles to grant their citizens a greater control over personal information.‖); Joel R. Reidenberg, Privacy in the Information Economy: A Fortress or Frontier for Individual Rights? , 44 FED. COMM . L. J. 195, 200 (1992) (―[P]rivacy principles applicable to computer processing of personal information were widely recognized around […]

[…] 98 “Workshop on ‘Data Protection Issue Identification’ ,” EU-China Information Society Project ,  April 2007. Available at  http://www.eu-china-infso .org/Regulation/regulation090800@2007-04- 20.html   99 Graham Greenleaf, “The APEC Privacy Initiative: ‘OC ED Lite’ for the Asia-Pacific?” Privacy  Laws & Business 71 (January/February 2004): 16-18.   100  Graham Greenleaf, “Five Years of the APEC Privacy F ramework: Failure or Promise,”  Computer Law & Security Report  25 (2009): 28-43.    101  Gabriela Kennedy, Sarah Doyle, Brenda Liu and Contr ibutors, “Data Protection in the Asia- Pacific region,”  Computer Law & Security Review  25 (2009): 59-68.    102  Tong Qi, “Research on Regional Cooperation Mechanis m of Competition Policies,”  Frontiers  of Law in China  4 (2009): 82 – 101, trans.  Wuda Guojifa Pinglun (International Law Review of  Wuhan University ) 6 (2007): 278-311.      29    Whether two-level personal data protection evolves  remains to be seen.  A multi-level  approach, however, has occurred with subnational le vels in China, i.e. provinces,  establishing their own personal data protection law s to facilitate cross-border trade.      Factor Four: Multinational and Regional Organizatio ns in a Soft Power Era    Rather than focus on China’s willingness to support  an international or regional privacy  framework for cross-border transactions, another ap proach is to examine China’s  emergence as a soft power in the region and world a nd the responsibilities that leadership  entails.  Soft power, as opposed to hard power, emp […]

[…] 98 “Workshop on ‘Data Protection Issue Identification’ ,” EU-China Information Society Project ,  April 2007. Available at  http://www.eu-china-infso .org/Regulation/regulation090800@2007-04- 20.html   99 Graham Greenleaf, “The APEC Privacy Initiative: ‘OC ED Lite’ for the Asia-Pacific?” Privacy  Laws & Business 71 (January/February 2004): 16-18.   100  Graham Greenleaf, “Five Years of the APEC Privacy F ramework: Failure or Promise,”  Computer Law & Security Report  25 (2009): 28-43.    101  Gabriela Kennedy, Sarah Doyle, Brenda Liu and Contr ibutors, “Data Protection in the Asia- Pacific region,”  Computer Law & Security Review  25 (2009): 59-68.    102  Tong Qi, “Research on Regional Cooperation Mechanis m of Competition Policies,”  Frontiers  of Law in China  4 (2009): 82 – 101, trans.  Wuda Guojifa Pinglun (International Law Review of  Wuhan University ) 6 (2007): 278-311.      29    Whether two-level personal data protection evolves  remains to be seen.  A multi-level  approach, however, has occurred with subnational le vels in China, i.e. provinces,  establishing their own personal data protection law s to facilitate cross-border trade.      Factor Four: Multinational and Regional Organizatio ns in a Soft Power Era    Rather than focus on China’s willingness to support  an international or regional privacy  framework for cross-border transactions, another ap proach is to examine China’s  emergence as a soft power in the region and world a nd the responsibilities that leadership  entails.  Soft power, as opposed to hard power, emp […]