by Daniel J. Solove
In three earlier posts, I’ve been exploring the nature of privacy and data security harms.
In the first post, Privacy and Data Security Violations: What’s The Harm?, I explored how the law often fails to recognize harm for privacy violations and data breaches.
In the second post, Why the Law Often Doesn’t Recognize Privacy and Data Security Harms, I examined why the law has struggled in recognizing harm for privacy violations and data breaches.
If you are interested in privacy and data security issues, there are many great ways Professor Solove can help you stay informed:
Professor Solove’s LinkedIn Influencer blog
You can follow Professor Solove on his blog at LinkedIn, where he is an “LinkedIn Influencer.” He blogs about various privacy and data security issues. His blog has more than 600,000 followers.
* * * *
Professor Solove’s Twitter Feed
Professor Solove is active on Twitter and posts links to current privacy and data security stories and new scholarship, cases, and developments of note.
* * * *
Sign up for our newsletter where Professor Solove provides information about his recent writings and new training programs that he has created.
* * * *
Professor Solove’s LinkedIn Discussion Groups
Please join one or more of Professor Solove’s LinkedIn discussion groups, where you can follow new developments on privacy, data security, HIPAA, and education privacy issues. You can also participate in the discussion, share interesting news and articles, ask questions, or start new conversations:
| Privacy and Data Security |
HIPAA Privacy and Security |
Education Privacy and Data Security |
 |
 |
 |
by Daniel J. Solove
I’ve been a teacher for the past 15 years, and I’ve taught in several mediums including live classes and computer-based e-learning. I have come to the conclusion that the most effective factor in education and training is fostering emotional investment.
Simply put, students must care about learning the material. The more they care, the more they learn.
The notion of getting emotional investment from students might sound like simple common sense, but it is often not done …and often not even attempted.
by Daniel J. Solove
In two earlier posts, I’ve been exploring the nature of privacy and data security harms.
Post 1: Privacy and Data Security Violations: What’s The Harm?
Post 2: Why the Law Often Doesn’t Recognize Privacy and Data Security Harms
In this post, I want to explore two issues that frequently emerge in privacy and data security cases: (a) the future risk of harm; and (b) individual vs. social harm.
by Daniel J. Solove
In my previous post on privacy/security harms, I explained how the law is struggling to deal with privacy and data security harms. In this post, I will explore why.
The Collective Harm Problem
One of the challenges with data harms is that they are often created by the aggregation of many dispersed actors over a long period of time. They are akin to a form of pollution where each particular infraction might, in and of itself, not cause much harm, but collectively, the infractions do create harm.
by Daniel J. Solove
This weekend, the results of an experiment conducted by researchers and Facebook were released, creating a fierce debate over the ethics of the endeavor. The experiment involved 689,003 people on Facebook whose News Feed was adjusted to contain either more positive or more negative emotional content. The researchers were looking for whether this had an effect on these people’s moods. And it did, albeit a small one. People exposed to more positive content had posts that were more positive, and those exposed to more negative content had posts that were more negative. This was measured by the types of words they used.
The experiment launched a fierce response from critics, some of whom decried it as unethical and creepy. In my view, it isn’t productive to castigate Facebook or the researchers, as the problems here emerge from some very difficult unresolved issues that go far beyond this experiment and Facebook. I want to explore these issues, because I’m more interested in making progress on these issues than on casting stones.
by Daniel J. Solove
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on two cases involving the police searching cell phones incident to arrest. The Court held 9-0 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to search a cell phone even after a person is placed under arrest.
The two cases are Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, and they are decided in the same opinion with the title Riley v. California. The Court must have chosen toname the case after Riley to make things hard for criminal procedure experts, as there is a famous Fourth Amendment case called Florida v. Riley, 488 U,S, 445 (1989), which will now create confusion whenever someone refers to the “Riley case.”
by Daniel J. Solove
“It’s just a flesh wound.”
– Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Suppose your personal data is lost, stolen, improperly disclosed, or improperly used. Are you harmed?
Suppose a company violates its privacy policy and improperly shares your data with another company. Does this cause a harm?
In most cases, courts say no. This is the case even when a company is acting negligently or recklessly. No harm, no foul.
by Daniel J. Solove
For trial attorneys, a key component to winning is carefully selecting people for the jury and tailoring arguments to best influence, nudge, or perhaps even manipulate jurors into reaching a particular verdict. As a result, there is a hunger to learn about the private lives of jurors, and serving on a jury can entail a huge loss of privacy.
by Daniel J. Solove
Identity theft is terrible crime, and it can wreak havoc on victims’ lives. In an identity theft, the thief uses a victim’s personal information to improperly access accounts, obtain credit in the victim’s name, or impersonate the victim for other purposes.
But there is an effective way to stop a lot of identity theft, and the legal framework is already in place to do it. In a relatively short time, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could prevent a significant amount of identity theft – perhaps even a majority of it – and no new laws need to be passed.
I know that it might be hard to believe – as hard to believe as a suitcase filled with a million dollars just sitting abandoned on the sidewalk – but it is quite true.
Before I explain how, I need to provide some background.
Free newsletter with cartoons, writings, events, webinars, training, humor and whiteboards.
