This cartoon is about profiling. A profile consists of a particular set of characteristics and behaviors that are deemed as suspicious by law enforcement. Profiles can be created by people or generated by algorithms that identify suspicious things from data of known criminals or terrorists.
Back in 1993, Professor Oscar Gandy, Jr. wrote one of the most insightful and prescient books about privacy: The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal Information.
Oscar Gandy is an emeritus professor with the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, having retired from active teaching in 2006. He has continued to publish in the areas of the political economy of communication and information, focusing most recently on the development and use of algorithmic technology.
I recently created a privacy law whiteboard library page where I’ve gathered all the whiteboards I’ve been creating. Thus far, I have created more than 40 privacy law whiteboards.
Each whiteboard is a 1-page visual summary of a privacy law. A few from the page are below. I’ve made a few available for free, but most are only available on this page.
Whiteboards can be licensed for use in conference presentations or other individual uses. There is also a way to license all the whiteboards as a package. For organizational uses or other uses, please reach out to us.
I recently published a short essay with Professor Danielle Citron critiquing the recent Supreme Court decision, TransUnion v. Ramirez (U.S. June 25, 2021) where the Court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to use FCRA’s private right of action to sue for being falsely labeled as terrorists in their credit reports.
The essay is here:
Daniel J. Solove & Danielle Keats Citron, Standing and Privacy Harms: A Critique of TransUnion v. Ramirez, 101 B.U. L. Rev. Online 62 (2021)
Here’s a short abstract:
Through the standing doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a new step toward severely limiting the effective enforcement of privacy laws. The recent Supreme Court decision, TransUnion v. Ramirez (U.S. June 25, 2021) revisits the issue of standing and privacy harms under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that began with Spokeo v. Robins, 132 S. Ct. 1441 (2012). In TransUnion, a group of plaintiffs sued TransUnion under FCRA for falsely labeling them as potential terrorists in their credit reports. The Court concluded that only some plaintiffs had standing – those whose credit reports were disseminated. Plaintiffs whose credit reports weren’t disseminated lacked a “concrete” injury and accordingly lacked standing – even though Congress explicitly granted them a private right of action to sue for violations like this and even though a jury had found that TransUnion was at fault.
In this essay, Professors Daniel J. Solove and Danielle Keats Citron engage in an extensive critique of the TransUnion case. They contend that existing standing doctrine incorrectly requires concrete harm. For most of U.S. history, standing required only an infringement on rights. Moreover, when assessing harm, the Court has a crabbed and inadequate understanding of privacy harms. Additionally, allowing courts to nullify private rights of action in federal privacy laws is a usurpation of legislative power that upends the compromises and balances that Congress establishes in laws. Private rights of action are essential enforcement mechanisms.
Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision, TransUnion v. Ramirez (U.S. June 25, 2021), prompted me to release this cartoon about privacy harms that I created a while ago. In TransUnion, a group of plaintiffs sued TransUnion for falsely labeling them as potential terrorists in their credit reports. The Supreme Court held that only some plaintiffs had standing – those whose credit reports were disseminated. Plaintiffs whose credit reports weren’t disseminated lacked a “concrete” injury and accordingly lacked standing – even though Congress explicitly granted them a private right of action to sue for violations like this and even though a jury had found that TransUnion was at fault.
The TransUnion decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh for a 5-4 majority, is wrong on so many levels. I wish the Supreme Court had read my recent article draft:
Danielle Keats Citron & Daniel J. Solove
Privacy Harms
forthcoming in B.U. L. Rev.
More background about the article is at my post here. I will write soon about the case.
For decades, I’ve been arguing that law schools must improve their programs for privacy law. A few years ago, I lead a group of academics and practitioners in crafting a letter to law school deans about why law schools must offer more in privacy law: An Open Letter to Law School Deans about Privacy Law Education in Law Schools. Recently, the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) came out with its guide, Privacy and Data Protection in Academia, A Global Guide to Curricula.
The guide wisely avoids trying to rank programs, and it contains a lot of very useful information. But I think that law schools need criteria to evaluate the strength of their programs, so I developed this list below of the key components of what I would consider to be a strong program. I’ve written about this before, but I continue to hone my thinking. Below are my latest thoughts:
The inaugural issue of Privacy and Data Protection in Academia, A Global Guide to Curricula has just been released. This guide has information regarding privacy and data protection programs and courses offered at graduate schools, including law, computer science and business schools around the world. This information was based on a survey.
Some law schools with notable privacy faculty and course offerings are missing, but overall, this is a useful guide. After seeing all the schools that offer some form of curriculum in privacy law, it might be tempting to conclude that this is a success story. It isn’t. Although the field of privacy law has grown dramatically in past two decades, education in law schools about privacy law has significantly lagged behind. Most U.S. law schools lack a course on privacy law. Of those that have courses, many are small seminars, often taught by adjuncts. Of the law schools that do have a privacy course, most often just have one course. Most schools lack a full-time faculty member who focuses substantially on privacy law. Read my article called An Open Letter to Law School Deans about Privacy Law Education in Law Schools to learn more about my thoughts in this area.
It is a shame that the majority of law schools still lack even a course on privacy law. Some have occasional seminars taught by adjuncts.
Below is my law school’s listing in the Guide. Although GW offers a lot comparative to many other schools, I still think we have a long way to go.
At my event, the Privacy Law Salon, we have a wonderful tradition of showing some of the year’s funniest privacy videos after dinner. I thought I’d share some of the videos I have enjoyed the most, plus some new ones I recently found.
In Every time you try and go on a website, British comedian Stevie Martin engages in an absolutely hilarious dialogue with Lola-Rose Maxwell. The pacing of their back-and-forth is perfect.
When you forget your password is another brilliant video by Stevie Martin. The comedic timing is impeccable.
On Friday, May 28, 2021, I had a conversation with Jules Polonetsky at the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) on his LinkedIn Live show. We spoke about my children’s book, THE EYEMONGER, my paper, Privacy Harms, with Professor Danielle Citron, and other things. You can watch it here.
Recently, I spoke with Emma Martins, Data Protection Commissioner at Guernsey’s Office of the Data Protection Authority as part of their Project Bijou. We spoke about a number of topics, including the effect of the GDPR and my new children’s book about privacy, The Eyemonger.
You can watch the video of our conversation here.