Author Archive for Daniel Solove
Privacy Rights in Death Photos: Catsuouras Case Decided
posted by Daniel Solove
Last year, I wrote about a case involving a lawsuit by a family against the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for improperly disseminating the accident-scene photos of their daughter (Nikki Catsouras), who perished in a gruesome automobile accident. Two dispatchers for the CHP emailed the photos to others, and they soon began being posted on the Internet. The family began receiving harassing phone calls.
They sued the CHP for public disclosure of private facts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of the constitutional right to information privacy. The trial court dismissed the entire complaint.
The California court of appeals recently reversed. In its opinion, it concluded, correctly in my view (both doctrinally and normatively) that “[t]he dissemination of death images can only affect the living. As cases from other jurisdictions make plain, family members have a common law privacy right in the death images of a decedent, subject to certain limitations.” They can thus proceed to trial on their tort privacy claims.
As for their constitutional right to information privacy claim, the court held that the CHP violated this right, but that the officers were immune under qualified immunity since the right was not “clearly established.”
In a Newsweek article about the case, Jessica Bennett reports:
Google still delivers 148,000 results for “Catsouras,” and there are multiple Web sites devoted solely to the awful photos. “It’s the simple things you never expect,” says Christos. “We live in fear of the pictures. And our kids will never Google their name without the risk of seeing them.”
I was interviewed for the article, and Bennett posed an interesting question: Could the Catsouras family sue the websites continuing to post the photos for invasion of privacy? Here’s an excerpt from the article:
February 5, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Gossip & Shaming), Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Print This Post
4 Comments
Welcome to a New Sponsor: Cambridge University Press
posted by Daniel Solove
I’m delighted to announce that Cambridge University Press is now advertising with us. Please be sure to check our sidebars for new books from Cambridge, as well as new books from Oxford University Press, which will continue to advertise with us.
We plan to rotate the ads, and we hope this will bring your attention to some great new books that will be of interest. Readers, we’re doing this for you . . . and to get filthy rich so we can blog from a tropical island!
February 4, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Posted in: Administrative Announcements
Print This Post
Comments Closed
Recent Book Reviews
posted by Daniel Solove
Here are some recent book reviews at Concurring Opinions:
In the weeks to come, a number of our readers will be contributing book reviews. We really have a great lineup ahead!
If you’re interested in reviewing a book, please email me. And if your book is published by one of our participating presses, you’ll even get a free review copy. Thus far, participating presses include:
* Oxford University Press
* Cambridge University Press
* Harvard University Press
* Princeton University Press
February 4, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Posted in: Book Reviews
Print This Post
No Comments
Free Review Copies of Princeton University Press Books
posted by Daniel Solove
I’m very pleased to announce the continued expansion of our book review project. In addition to Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard, Princeton University Press will now offer free review copies to our blog readers who agree to write a book review. Please email your proposals to me.
To read some previous book reviews, along with book-related posts, please visit our book review archive page.
Here are some recent titles in law/politics by Princeton University Press:
* James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk
* Derek Bok, The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being
* James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People
* Kent Greenawalt, Religion and the Constitution, Volume 1: Free Exercise and Fairness
* Kent Greenawalt, Religion and the Constitution, Volume 2: Establishment and Fairness
* Mark A. R. Kleiman, When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment
* Jonathan R. Macey, Corporate Governance: Promises Kept, Promises Broken
* Daniel Markovits, A Modern Legal Ethics: Adversary Advocacy in a Democratic Age
* Andrei Marmor, Social Conventions: From Language to Law
* Eric A. Posner & David Weisbach, Climate Change Justice
* Steven H. Shiffrin, The Religious Left and Church-State Relations
* Cass R. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn’t Mean What It Meant Before
* Cass R. Sunstein, Republic.com 2.0
* Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging
* Steven M. Teles, The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law
* Mark Tushnet, Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law
Feel free to propose a review of any of the above books or any other recent books in Princeton University Press’s catalog.
Please email your proposals to me.
January 27, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Posted in: Administrative Announcements, Articles and Books, Book Reviews
Print This Post
No Comments
Book Review Project: Free Harvard University Press Books
posted by Daniel Solove
I’m delighted to announce that Harvard University Press is joining our book review project along with Oxford and Cambridge.
Harvard will offer free review copies of their books to anyone whom we approve to write a book review for this blog.
Here are some ideas for books to review:
* Abdullah Ahmed An-Na’im, Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari’a (new in paperback)
* Daniel Bodansky, The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law
* David K. Cohen and Susan L. Moffitt, The Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation Fix the Schools?
* Lisa Ford, Settler Sovereignty: Jurisdiction and Indigenous People in America and Australia, 1788-1836
* Amy Gajda, The Trials of Acadame: The New Era of Campus Litigation
* Risa L. Goluboff, The Lost Promise of Civil Rights (new in paperback)
* Jeffrey M. Jentzen, Death Investigation in America: Coroners, Medical Examiners, and the Pursuit of Medical Certainty
* David H. Kaye, The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence
* Richard J. Leo, Police Interrogation and American Justice (new in paperback)
* Brian McGinty, John Brown’s Trial
* Khalil Gibran Muhammad, The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Marking of Urban America
* Stephen C. Neff, Justice in Blue and Gray: A Legal History of the American Civil War
* Sharanjeet Parmar, Mindy Jane Roseman, and Saudamini Siegrist, Children and Transitional Justice: Truth-Telling, Accountability, and Reconciliation
* Jack Rakove, The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence
* Arthur Ripstein: Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy
* Randolph Roth, American Homicide
* Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice
* Daniel J. Solove, Understanding Privacy (new in paperback)
* Keith Whittington, Constitutional Construction
Feel free to propose a review of any of the above books or any other recent books in Harvard University Press’s catalog. Here’s the link to Harvard’s page for recent titles in law.
Please email your proposals to me.
January 25, 2010 at 7:18 am
Posted in: Administrative Announcements, Articles and Books, Book Reviews
Print This Post
No Comments
Free Review Copies of Cambridge University Press Books to Reviewers
posted by Daniel Solove
As part of our ongoing book review project, where we solicit book reviews from our readers, some university presses are offering free review copies to reviewers whose proposals we accept.
We’re happy to announce that Cambridge University Press will offer free review copies of their books to anyone whom we approve to write a book review for this blog.
Here are some ideas for books to review:
* Elkins, Ginsburg & Melton – The Endurance of National Constitutions
* May & Hoskins – International Criminal Law and Philosophy
* Sarat – Law and the Humanities: An Introduction
* Sarat – Sovereignty, Emergency, Legality
* Vischer – Conscience and the Common Good: Reclaiming the Space Between the Person and the State
* Freeman – Necessary Evils: Amnesties and the Search for Justice
* Charlesworth & Coicaud – Fault Lines of International Legitimacy
* Scharf & Williams Shaping Foreign Policy in Times of Crisis: The Role of
International Law and the State Department Legal Advisor
* Lepard – Customary International Law: A New Theory with Practical
Applications
* Solis – The Law of Armed Conflict
* Zagais – International White Collar Crime
* Richards – Fundamentalism in American Religion and Law
* Den Otter – Judicial Review in an Age of Moral Pluralism
* Burns & Osofsky – Adjudicating Climate Change
* Patterson & Afilalo – The New Global Trading Order: The Evolving State and the Future of Trade
Feel free to propose a review of any of the above books or any other books at Cambridge. Email your proposals to me.
Oxford University Press also offers free review copies.
You can therefore propose to review any book on Oxford or Cambridge’s list, and if we approve you, you’ll be sent a free review copy. Also feel free to review books from other presses, though they currently aren’t offering free review copies.
January 21, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Posted in: Articles and Books, Book Reviews
Print This Post
No Comments
BRIGHT IDEAS: A Dialogue with Brian Tamanaha
posted by Daniel Solove
Professor Brian Tamanaha (Washington University School of Law) has been publishing a number of must-read works in jurisprudence. His latest book is Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2010). Brian was gracious enough to respond to my request for a brief dialogue about his ideas in the book. I agree with quite a lot of what Brian argues, but I played a bit of a skeptic in my interview questions, as I wanted to push him on some of his arguments. Here’s our exchange:
Solove: You argue in your book that the “formalist-realist divide” is a myth based on a straw-man account of formalism – that formalists were unduly rigid and mechanistic and that realists correctly pointed out that judges weren’t purely objective robots. You spend the first part of your book debunking the traditional view of formalism, noting that formalists were much more balanced and realistic than their critics give them credit for. You argue that dethroning this picture of formalism should lead to an embrace of “balanced realism.” What do you mean by “balanced realism”?
Tamanaha: My argument is not quite that we have bought into a “straw-man [or exaggerated] account of formalism,” but more strongly, that the “formalist age” was a pure invention by progressive critics to paint judges as deluded or deceptive. I provide substantial evidence in the book showing that judges and jurists at the turn of the century did not believe in “formalism.” There were no avowed “formalists” in the U.S. legal culture (although it did exist in German legal science). Indeed, “formalism” was used as an insult at the time; they associated formalism with a primitive stage in law, which they had progressed beyond; “the Zeitgeist and its dislike of formalism,” wrote a jurist in 1893. I show in the book that, contrary to conventional accounts of the so-called formalist age, the jurists now identified as leading “formalists” (Cooley, Carter, Dillon, etc.) all said very realistic things about judging.
“Balanced realism” recognizes that there are gaps in the law, that sometimes judges have discretion and must make choices, that different judges can sometimes interpret the same law in different ways owing to differences in perspective and background, that inconsistent precedents or conflicts in the applicable law can exist, and that sometimes judges manipulate the law to reach desired ends (I called these factors the “skeptical aspects”); but “balanced realism” also recognizes that a substantial bulk of the time the rules and their application are clear and predictable, that surrounding institutional factors constrain judges, that most judges abide by the commitment to follow the law, and that the overwhelming majority of judicial decisions are legally determined (the “rule bound” aspects).
I call this “balanced realism” because it acknowledges the limitations inherent to law and human judges—which cannot be eliminated—yet it also recognizes that law nonetheless works, that judges can and do render rule bound decisions. For at least two centuries, the book shows, judges and jurists have described law and judging in balanced realist terms. The formalist-realist divide that dominates contemporary views of judging tends to obscure this common ground.
Solove: You write that “the greater danger to the legal system today is posed not by excessive formalism but by excessive skepticism about judging” (p. 197). What do you mean by this?
Tamanaha: The rule bound aspect of judging can function reliably within a legal system notwithstanding the challenges attendant to the skepticism-inducing aspects, but this is an achievement that must be earned, is never perfectly accomplished, and is never guaranteed. Excessive skepticism about judging threatens to disrupt the balance. If our legal culture buys into the view that judging is a cover for politics, then judges might well come to think it is naïve or foolish to strive to live up to the commitment to rule in accordance with the law. If this commitment is lost, rule bound judging will diminish.
January 19, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Posted in: Articles and Books, Book Reviews, Bright Ideas, Constitutional Law, Legal Theory
Print This Post
No Comments
The FBI’s Electronic Surveillance Violations
posted by Daniel Solove
The Washington Post reports that the FBI engaged in severe violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act between 2002 and 2006:
The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions.
E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats.
A Justice Department inspector general’s report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed.
ECPA allows the FBI to issue National Security Letters (NSLs) to obtain information from communications service providers. I’ve criticized NSLs in the past for providing too minimal a protection of privacy: “A NSL is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various record and data pertaining to individuals. They do not require probable cause, a warrant, or even judicial oversight. They also come with a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Compliance is mandatory.”
Apparently, the FBI found NSLs to be too cumbersome because they required an open case, so they devised a work-around. According to the Washington Post:
January 19, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Electronic Surveillance), Privacy (Law Enforcement), Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
One Comment
The Nature of Privacy Harms: Financial and Physical Harm vs. Emotional and Mental Harm
posted by Daniel Solove
The 9th Circuit is hearing an interesting case involving the Privacy Act — Cooper v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. C 071383 VRW (N.D. Cal. 2008). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shared information about pilot Stanmore Cooper’s HIV positive status with other government agencies. The district court found this information sharing to be improper under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a:
Because DOT-OIG transmitted Cooper’s records to another agency without his prior consent and this use does not fall within the routine use or another exception to 5 USC § 552a(b), the DOTOIG’s use of Cooper’s record was unlawful under 5 USC § 552a(b).
However, the fact that an agency violates the Privacy Act does not mean that a plaintiff can obtain redress. In a decision I find wrongheaded–both as a matter of statutory interpretation as well as normative policy–the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Privacy Act requires that a plaintiff prove actual damages before being able to get monetary relief under the Act. See Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004). The Supreme Court reached this conclusion even though the Privacy Act has a liquidated damages provision:
[T]he United States shall be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of . . . actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000.
5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4). In order to receive the liquidated damages of $1000, plaintiffs must first demonstrate they are “entitled to recovery” and prove actual damages.
I believe the holding in Chao is misguided because the very function of a liquidated damages provision is to address difficulties in proving harm. Privacy Act violations often involve harms that are not akin to traditional types of injuries. Privacy harms caused by misuse or improper dissemination of information are more abstract in nature and often can’t be directly linked to financial losses or physical injury. Nevertheless, they are harms, and without a way for plaintiffs to recover damages for such harms, there is not a sufficient incentive for plaintiffs to bring Privacy Act lawsuits and for agencies to follow the Privacy Act.
Unfortunately, until Congress amends the Privacy Act to more clearly establish that liquidated damages can be recovered without proof of actual damages, plaintiffs must establish actual damages.
The issue in Cooper is what kind of damages can constitute actual damages. Can emotional/mental damages alone constitute actual damages?
There’s a circuit split on the issue. As the district court noted:
January 15, 2010 at 8:01 am
Posted in: Privacy
Print This Post
6 Comments
The Year in Privacy Books 2009
posted by Daniel Solove
Here’s a list of notable privacy books published in 2009. For last year’s list, click here.
Frederick S. Lane, American Privacy: The 400-Year History of Our Most Contested Right (Beacon Press 2009)
My blurb: “Frederick Lane’s American Privacy is a highly readable history of the right to privacy in America. It brings to life the people, debates, and events that have shaped our current protections of privacy.”
Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life (Stanford 2009)
My blurb: “This book provides a refreshing, contemporary look at information privacy in the twenty-first century. Nissenbaum persuasively argues that privacy must be understood in its social context, and she provides an insightful and illuminating account of how to do so. For anyone considering the burgeoning problems of information privacy, Privacy in Context is essential reading.”
Jeannie Suk, At Home in the Law: How the Domestic Violence Revolution Is Transforming Privacy (Yale 2009)
Suk’s book explores the concept of the home through the lens of law and the humanities. In the process, she examines domestic violence, privacy, burglary, takings, due process, feminism, and more. Suk critiques law in a literary and cultural manner, and her work is interesting, nuanced, and provocative.
Andrea Matwyshyn (editor), Harboring Data: Information Security, Law, and the Corporation (Stanford 2009)
Matwyshyn’s book focuses on data security, and it contains essays from a really top-notch group of experts. It explores data security breach notification laws, as well as the security of various kinds of data (trade secrets, patents, financial, health, children’s information). The book also nicely weaves together several disciplines — law, business, and technology.
Ian Kerr, Carole Lucock, and Valerie Steeves (editors), Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society (Oxford 2009)
Ian Kerr and his fellow editors have collected a terrific group of essays about privacy and identification. Froomkin, Raab, Nissenbaum, Chandler, and many others have contributed to this volume. This is a great book.
Ross Clark, The Road to Big Brother: One Man’s Struggle Against the Surveillance Society (Encounter Books 2009)
A fun examination of Britain’s CCTV system, which consists of 4.2 million surveillance cameras, as well as other forms of monitoring. Clark weaves together personal anecdotes and interesting facts in this short and humorous book. An enjoyable read.
—————————————————————————————————
NOTE: I must mention a pet-peeve of mine. A few of the books above could have been improved if the books contained citations. Although I greatly enjoyed Lane and Clark’s books, I found their lack of notes to be quite frustrating. This seems to be a trend with commercial presses — having authors forgo any citations whatsoever. While endnotes are slightly distracting, their benefits far outweigh this cost. They are especially helpful to check the accuracy of facts and research as well as to locate sources for further research. Even in non-scholarly books, notes are valuable and should not be excluded.
January 13, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Posted in: Articles and Books, Book Reviews, Privacy
Print This Post
3 Comments
posted by Daniel Solove
An E-Book Buyer’s Guide to Privacy from EFF.
December 28, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Posted in: Asides
Print This Post
No Comments
Book Reviews at Concurring Opinions
posted by Daniel Solove
The book review project at Concurring Opinions has kicked off with a thoughtful and rigorous review by Professor Brannon Denning of Anne Proffitt Dupre’s Speaking Up: The Unintended Costs of Free Speech in Public Schools (Harvard University Press 2009). Thanks, Brannon, for a great review!
Recently, I announced that Oxford University Press will be offering free review copies to book reviewers whose book review proposals we accept at Concurring Opinions. So far, the promotion has been going well — we have at least four book reviews that will be forthcoming.
You can read archived book reviews at Concurring Opinions here.
If you are interested in reviewing a book for Concurring Opinions, please send me an email with your proposal. You can review a book by any publisher, not just Oxford, though at the moment, only Oxford offers free review copies. We are in the process of trying to work out similar deals with other publishers.
December 23, 2009 at 11:17 am
Posted in: Administrative Announcements, Book Reviews
Print This Post
No Comments
posted by Daniel Solove
Facebook privacy policy change — an unfair and deceptive trade practice? See EPIC’s complaint to the FCC. (DJS)
December 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Posted in: Asides
Print This Post
No Comments
Free Oxford University Press Books to Reviewers
posted by Daniel Solove
A few months ago, we began a book review project at Concurring Opinions, inviting readers to submit proposals to review books, and we would publish their book reviews on Concurring Opinions.
We have arranged a great deal from Oxford University Press (OUP), one of our main sponsors, in conjunction with our book review project. If you want to review any of OUP’s book and we approve your proposal, we can arrange for you to obtain a free review copy of the book from OUP. To get the process started, just send me your proposal if you’re interested in doing a book review.
Of course, you’re free to be as honest and critical as you would like in your book review, and you’re welcome to review non-Oxford books, but the free review copies come only with OUP books.
Some recent OUP books that might be of interest and make for good reviewing material include:
* Jack Balkin & Reva Siegel eds., The Constitution in 2020
* Angela Davis, Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor
* Nita Farahany, ed. The Impact of Behavioral Sciences on Criminal Law
* Douglas Husak, Overcriminalization: The Limits on the Criminal Law
* Kurt Lash, The Lost History of the Ninth Amendment
* Ian Kerr, Carole Lucock, & Valerie Steeves, eds., Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society
* Stefanie Lindquist& Frank Cross, Measuring Judicial Activism
* William Patry, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars
* Larry Ribstein, The Rise of the Uncorporation
* Lee Bollinger, Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A free Press for a New Century
There are many more great OUP titles, so please be sure to check their website. Also note that if you buy a book from OUP by clicking on one of the OUP ads on the left sidebar, you’ll receive a 20% discount.
December 14, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Posted in: Administrative Announcements, Book Reviews
Print This Post
No Comments
ABA Journal Top 100 Law Blogs
posted by Daniel Solove
I’m pleased to announce that for the third year in a row, Concurring Opinions was named as one of the Top 100 law blogs in the ABA Journal’s list of best legal blogs chosen by its editors. We’re listed in the legal theory category. It’s a good list in this category — lots of great blogs listed — but a big gripe is the omission of Larry Solum’s terrific Legal Theory Blog.
They also have a silly vote-for-your-favorite-blog contest among those listed, but this merely measures the size of a blog’s readership, so the results can be figured out in advance just by checking sitemeters. In other words, the Volokh Conspiracy will win.
December 6, 2009 at 8:43 am
Posted in: Administrative Announcements
Print This Post
One Comment
Tiger Woods and Privacy
posted by Daniel Solove
Over at the New York Times blog, Room for Debate I am among a group of four authors of very short op-ed arguments regarding Tiger Woods and his demand for privacy in his personal matters. Other contributors include: Anita Allen (U. Penn. Law School), Diane Zimmerman (NYU Law School), and Kashmir Hill (Above the Law and True/Slant). If you’re interested, check it out here.
December 3, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Print This Post
2 Comments
Introducing Guest Blogger Anita Krishnakumar
posted by Daniel Solove
I’m delighted to introduce Professor Anita S. Krishnakumar (St. John’s School of Law), who will be joining us for a reprise guest visit for the next month.
Anita teaches Legislation, Introduction to Law, and Trusts and Estates. She received her J.D. from Yale University, and her B.A. from the Stanford University. Before joining the St. John’s faculty in 2006, she visited at Touro Law School from 2004-06. Prior to entering law teaching, she worked as an associate in the appellate litigation group at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, and as a litigation associate at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, & Hamilton. Before that, she was as a law clerk for Jose A. Cabranes of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 2009, she received a Dean’s Teaching Award, based on student evaluations.
Anita’s current research focuses on legislative solutions to legislative process dysfunctions, recent trends in the Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation cases, judicial treatment of political parties, and election law.
Her publications include:
* The Hidden Legacy of Holy Trinity Church: The Unique National Institution Canon, 51 William & Mary L. Rev. (forthcoming 2009)
* Representation Reinforcement: A Legislative Solution to a Legislative Process Problem, 46 Harv. J. on Legisl. 1 (2009)
* Towards A Madisonian “Interest-Group” Approach To Lobbying Regulation, 58 Alabama Law Review 513 (2007)
November 1, 2009 at 8:21 am
Posted in: Administrative Announcements
Print This Post
2 Comments
Consumer Attitudes on Privacy and Behavioral Marketing
posted by Daniel Solove
Joseph Turow, Chris Hoofnagle, Jennifer King, Amy Bleakley, and Michael Hennessy have just issued a very interesting consumer survey on privacy and behavioral marketing entitled, Americans Reject Tailored Advertising and Three Activities that Enable It.
Some of the survey’s findings:
* Even when they are told that the act of following them on websites will take place anonymously, Americans’ aversion to it remains: 68% “definitely” would not allow it, and 19% would “probably” not allow it. (p. 2)
* 69% of American adults feel there should be a law that gives people the right to know everything that a website knows about them. (p. 2)
* 92% agree there should be a law that requires “websites and advertising companies to delete all stored information about an individual, if requested to do so.” (p. 2)
* Signaling frustration over privacy issues, Americans are inclined toward strict punishment of information offenders. 70% suggest that a company should be fined more than the maximum amount suggested ($2,500) “if a company purchases or uses someone’s information illegally.” (p. 3)
* Our survey did find that younger American adults are less likely to say no to tailored advertising than are older ones. Still, more than half (55%) of 18- 24 year-olds do not want tailored advertising. And contrary to consistent assertions of marketers, young adults have as strong an aversion to being followed across websites and offline (for example, in stores) as do older adults. 86% of young adults say they don’t want tailored advertising if it is the result of following their behavior on websites other than one they are visiting, and 90% of them reject it if it is the result of following what they do offline. (p. 2)
These are just a few of the many findings in this fascinating survey. The New York Times has coverage of the survey here.
September 29, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Print This Post
No Comments
Facebook Settles Beacon Lawsuit
posted by Daniel Solove
A while ago, I wrote a lot about Facebook’s Beacon on this blog:
* The Facebook-Fandango Connection: Invasion of Privacy?
* Facebook’s Beacon: News Feeds All Over Again?
* Facebook and the Appropriation of Name or Likeness Tort
* The New Facebook Ads — Starring You: Another Privacy Debacle?
* Facebook — the New DoubleClick?
* Facebook Listens and Responds
* Facebook’s Beacon, Blockbuster, and the Video Privacy Protection Act
A class action suit was initiated against Facebook, and recently, a settlement agreement has been reached. According to the WSJ:
Facebook Inc. said Friday it settled a class-action lawsuit related to its Beacon Web product, a controversial service that displayed actions that users took on other Web sites back on Facebook.
As part of the settlement, which is pending approval in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, the social-network concern will shut down the Beacon service, which it has been phasing out but which is still being used by a small number of Web sites, according to a Facebook spokesman.
The company will also pay $9.5 million to create a foundation to fund products that promote online privacy, safety and security, the spokesman said. The settlement was submitted to the court late Friday evening.
September 21, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Posted in: Privacy, Privacy (Consumer Privacy), Social Network Websites, Web 2.0
Print This Post
No Comments
Understanding Privacy in Paperback
posted by Daniel Solove
I’m pleased to announce that my book, Understanding Privacy, has just come out in paperback from Harvard University Press, with a price that’s much more reasonable and affordable than the hardcover.
Understanding Privacy offers a comprehensive overview of the many difficulties involved in discussions of privacy. Drawing from a broad array of interdisciplinary sources, I set forth a framework for understanding privacy that provides clear practical guidance for engaging with privacy issues.
September 14, 2009 at 7:36 am
Posted in: Articles and Books, Book Reviews, Privacy, Privacy (Consumer Privacy), Privacy (Electronic Surveillance), Privacy (Gossip & Shaming), Privacy (ID Theft), Privacy (Law Enforcement), Privacy (Medical), Privacy (National Security)
Print This Post
No Comments
