Blog

Between 2009 and 2020, Josh published more than 10,000 blog posts. Here, you can access his blog archives.

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009

New Article on Solove and Friedman’s take on Information Privacy Law

December 28th, 2009

Take a look at this new article by Peter Schwartz on SSRN, titled From Victorian Secrets to Cyberspace Shaming.

Worrying about privacy is a growth industry. The public is highly concerned about how its personal information is collected, stored, and processed. Technology companies compete to create new applications that will analyze personal data and meet new needs, such as the ability to broadcast one’s GPS data to family and friends (no more lunches alone). The government is interested in access to personal data for law enforcement, regulatory, and administrative purposes. And the media, when not reporting on the latest privacy invasions by companies or government, is publishing “tell-all” stories on anyone viewed as newsworthy, that is, deemed worthy of its attention.

Two excellent guides to this cauldron of law, social change, and technology have now been published. These are Lawrence Friedman’s Guarding Life’s Dark Secrets, and Daniel Solove’s The Future of Reputation. In this Review, I discuss and analyze the main arguments of both books. Friedman and Solove make major contributions to our understanding of privacy law. The great benefit of Friedman’s work comes from its rich depiction of the legal and social context of privacy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the uncertain fate of it in the twenty-first century. The merit of Solove’s work is his precise guidance through the new landscape of Internet-based phenomena and his insights into how these affect privacy and reputation – often in a fashion unanticipated by the general public. I also offer critiques of each volume. Regarding Guarding Life’s Dark Secrets, I argue that Friedman’s terminology regarding social structure is looser than it should be, which leads to a sacrifice of some intellectual clarity in the otherwise brilliant landscape of his book. Moreover, Friedman warns that in the future, technology will work as a way to squeeze discretion and privacy out of the legal system. In my view, however, technology is today accompanied by a series of discretionary choices that affect privacy. Technology provides new and complex ways to disguise discretion.

In The Future of Reputation, Solove is interested in how norms can affect behavior and even supplement law. I would have liked to have heard more from him, however, about how cyberspace affects the generation of norms, and how his privacy-promotive norms are to be generated. Moreover, Solove largely views law as an independent variable. He approaches law as a norm entrepreneur and calls for a number of changes in it. Yet, in certain instances, I wished his proposals to be more detailed and more fully operationalized. Finally, I suggest a number of new Internet-based phenomena that Solove might consider in the future, perhaps in Reputation 2.0, the (hypothetical) next edition of his book.

I really enjoy Dan Solove’s scholarship, and his book, The Future of Reputation, is a great read. I heavily relied on it in Omniveillance.

Texas Prosecutor Shames Drunk Drivers on Twitter

December 28th, 2009

From Gizmodo:

District Attorney Brett Ligon in Montgomery County, Texas will soon be using his Twitter account to name and shame drunk drivers in his area. Based on his current tweets, this is a comedy goldmine in the making.
The Montgomery DA already tweets about legal events—sometimes seriously and sometimes with incredible humor—so this new program will just be expanding on that habit. I may not live in Montgomery Country, or Texas for that matter, but I’ll be following along to see if he keeps up this mix.

The Power of Web 2.0 and Social Networking to shame people into conforming with certain behaviors is very powerful. I wonder how the government can use these forms of pressure to shame people.

I’m Taking Suggestions for FantasySCOTUS.net Web 2.0 Upgrades, Facebook Application, and Facebook Connect

December 27th, 2009

In a little over a month, FantasySCOTUS.net has grown from a simple idea to the “hottest new fantasy-league game” on the Internet with over 3,000 members. It has been featured on CNN, the WSJ Law Blog, the NY Times Freakanomics Blog, Volokh, Balkinzation, and other sites. As fast as it has grown, I am not convinced it has gone viral quite yet. So, I’m looking to improve  the site and make it more Web 2.0 Friendly.

Here are a few initiatives I have in mind. Please post a comment if you have any suggestions or ideas on how to improve the site.

Facebook Connect

You may have seen a Facebook Connect on different blogs. Facebook Connect allows you to link your Facebook and FantasySCOTUS.net account. Facebook Connect will allow me to offer a lot more social networking ease.

Facebook Application

In addition to Facebook Connect, I want to offer a Facebook Application version of FantasySCOTUS.net that offers some functionality, and some fun bonuses

Twitter Connect

Thoughts? Suggestions? Comments?

An Ode to Human Progress: WSJ Op-Ed- “Technology Predictions Are Mostly Bunk”

December 27th, 2009

The ability of the human mind to invent, innovate, and create, never ceases to amaze me. This WSJ Op-Ed has some of the most near-sighted and ignorant quotes from man, who questioned the ability of progress and human ingenuity.

“Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further developments,” said Roman engineer Julius Sextus Frontinus in 10 A.D.

Charles Duell, commissioner for the U.S. Patent Office, who in 1899 said, “Everything that can be invented has already been invented.”

“The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys,” Sir William Preece, chief engineer at the British Post Office, 1878.

“Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” H.M. Warner, Warner Bros., 1927.

“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers,” Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.

“Television won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night,” Darryl Zanuck, 20th Century Fox, 1946.

“The world potential market for copying machines is 5,000 at most,” IBM executives to the eventual founders of Xerox, 1959.

“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home,” Ken Olsen, founder of mainframe-producer Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

“No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer—640K ought to be enough for anybody,” Bill Gates, Microsoft, 1981.

“Next Christmas the iPod will be dead, finished, gone, kaput,” Sir Alan Sugar, British entrepreneur, 2005.

In a word, Fail.

In 1997 when I was in the 7th grade, a friend told me that computers had reached their peak, and that nothing revolutionary was left to be created. I didn’t quite understand then what I understand now, but I immediately thought that proposition was preposterous. In hindsight, as cool as 56K modems, AOL 3.0, and Windows 95 were, I think technology has progressed.

The only obstacle hindering the ability of the mind to create is not limitations of the human ingenuity, but the oppressive stronghold of the state. Shrug.

Twitter Tapping – When the Gov Monitors Facebook, Twitter, and Web 2.0

December 26th, 2009

From the New York Times, an editorial titled Twitter Tapping,

The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters. A public interest group has filed a lawsuit to learn more about this monitoring, in the hope of starting a national discussion and modifying privacy laws as necessary for the online era

This month the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law sued the Department of Defense, the C.I.A. and other federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act to learn more about their use of social networking sites.

Who needs search warrants and the Patriot Act when people freely volunteer information about themselves onto Facebook, Twitter, and other Web 2.0 sources. And despite any privacy mechanisms these sources may offer, the Government can easily obtain this information.

As I wrote in Omniveillance, Google, Privacy in Public, and the Right to Your Digital Identity: A Tort for Recording and Disseminating an Individual’s Image over the Internet at 209,  “Additionally, with a subpoena, the government has ready access to a free surveillance network, further imperiling our civil liberties.”