Internet Law Program 2011 - User contributions [en]

Talk:Privacy

2011-09-09T03:53:50Z

Adhir:

'''Summary and Key Thematic Areas'''

During this session Professor (Doktor) Burkert first provided a history of data protection, an idea which the Germans “stole” from the U.S. and codified in the 1970 Hesse Data Protection Act. It was a recognition that, somehow, data handling by machines makes people uncomfortable. This led to furious debate on the question tool -- do different contexts/entities handling the data (through machines) lead to different levels of user comfort? This debate turned to a comparison between the different perceptions and motivations of public and private parties in data collection and processing. Are governments more likely to use data for control, compared to a user experience motivation in the private sector? Or are the dangers of the private sector’s handling of such data equally problematic? This recalls JZ’s refrain that users are willingly marching toward a non-generative/controlled environment for the sake of convenience and enhanced user experience. One other interesting concept from Burkert’s presentation was the European Info Act’s emphasis on proportionality in evaluating whether or not data should be released: the need has to justify release of personal information.

Then Professor Malone provided an overview of the US approach to privacy, based on a notice and consent regime (aside from specific sectoral laws like HIPAA and FERPA) that is “transactional” and less nuanced than the European approach. He noted that the American approach, while effective in other areas, has serious deficiencies when it comes to adequately protecting or informing users of data-reliant services. He noted that terms of service very rarely draw scrutiny from the FTC, except when services fail to live up to their stated privacy policy (as with Google Buzz). Debate then ensued on the question tool about what kind of “notice and consent” regime would satisfy both consumer need for privacy and desire for a smooth interaction with a website interface. For example, how would consumers respond to piecemeal, instantaneous privacy notices (as opposed to a page wall of info), where the user would have to opt in each time information is collected. Would it disrupt the interaction too much to be viable? Professor Malone then also contrasted the reluctance of Europeans (in particular, Germans) to accept invasions on privacy with the American (more) liberal attitude toward it. For example, many people in Germany had chosen to opt out for having their homes displayed on Google’s street view, choosing instead to have them blurred. Professor Malone also proposed for us to look at public to private as a “continuum” rather than as binary modes. Lastly he provided a different kind of framework for looking at privacy: as contextual (which is how youngsters today view it) rather than absolute.

One poignant tweet interestingly weaved between Prof. Dr. Burkert’s lecture and Professor Malone’s, from KendraSerra, “Conflict between "right to be forgotten" and "right to speak" evident in European/American privacy views. #ilaw2011”, foreshadowing the many divergent views on privacy and Internet that cross geographic boundaries will surely encounter as it continues to evolve.

'''Key Areas of Debate'''

- Zittrain: Who are “European countries kidding” -- are hyper-strict privacy regimes are unrealistic?

- Why are people more comfortable with private companies like Google handling data than government? Possible theories are: differing levels of visibility in privacy encroachment (high for government, low for private companies), social adjustment, perception that private companies can enhance user experience with more data whereas government has malicious intent, levels of (potential) harm

- Conflicting privacy regimes tending to reinforce existing values

- Why Germany (or the EU generally) and the US have diverged in acceptance of levels of data privacy

'''Further Questions (for Future of Internet Discussion)'''

- As the Internet and technologies increasingly blur physical boundaries, how should we address national differences in privacy law?

- For Prof. Burkert: How do economics and concerns about the market inform the conversation about privacy? Do cost-based concerns about data protection regulation get much traction (as they do in the US).

- What (if any) is the relationship between the strong, protection-of-personality privacy law that has arisen in Germany and the more limited use of e-commerce and social media in Germany than in the US? More generally, how and why have attitudes toward privacy developed differently in Germany and the US?

- Given the economic implications of privacy regulation for e-commerce, how should regulators and policymakers be thinking about the policy process around privacy?

Talk:Privacy

2011-09-09T03:47:45Z

Adhir:

Summary and Key Thematic Areas

During this session Professor (Doktor) Burkert first provided a history of data protection, an idea which the Germans “stole” from the U.S. and codified in the 1970 Hesse Data Protection Act. It was a recognition that, somehow, data handling by machines makes people uncomfortable. This led to furious debate on the question tool -- do different contexts/entities handling the data (through machines) lead to different levels of user comfort? This debate turned to a comparison between the different perceptions and motivations of public and private parties in data collection and processing. Are governments more likely to use data for control, compared to a user experience motivation in the private sector? Or are the dangers of the private sector’s handling of such data equally problematic? This recalls JZ’s refrain that users are willingly marching toward a non-generative/controlled environment for the sake of convenience and enhanced user experience. One other interesting concept from Burkert’s presentation was the European Info Act’s emphasis on proportionality in evaluating whether or not data should be released: the need has to justify release of personal information.

Then Professor Malone provided an overview of the US approach to privacy, based on a notice and consent regime (aside from specific sectoral laws like HIPAA and FERPA) that is “transactional” and less nuanced than the European approach. He noted that the American approach, while effective in other areas, has serious deficiencies when it comes to adequately protecting or informing users of data-reliant services. He noted that terms of service very rarely draw scrutiny from the FTC, except when services fail to live up to their stated privacy policy (as with Google Buzz). Debate then ensued on the question tool about what kind of “notice and consent” regime would satisfy both consumer need for privacy and desire for a smooth interaction with a website interface. For example, how would consumers respond to piecemeal, instantaneous privacy notices (as opposed to a page wall of info), where the user would have to opt in each time information is collected. Would it disrupt the interaction too much to be viable? Professor Malone then also contrasted the reluctance of Europeans (in particular, Germans) to accept invasions on privacy with the American (more) liberal attitude toward it. For example, many people in Germany had chosen to opt out for having their homes displayed on Google’s street view, choosing instead to have them blurred. Professor Malone also proposed for us to look at public to private as a “continuum” rather than as binary modes. Lastly he provided a different kind of framework for looking at privacy: as contextual (which is how youngsters today view it) rather than absolute.

One poignant tweet interestingly weaved between Prof. Dr. Burkert’s lecture and Professor Malone’s, from KendraSerra, “Conflict between "right to be forgotten" and "right to speak" evident in European/American privacy views. #ilaw2011”, foreshadowing the many divergent views on privacy and Internet that cross geographic boundaries will surely encounter as it continues to evolve.

Key Areas of Debate

- Zittrain: Who are “European countries kidding” -- are hyper-strict privacy regimes are unrealistic?

- Why are people more comfortable with private companies like Google handling data than government? Possible theories are: differing levels of visibility in privacy encroachment (high for government, low for private companies), social adjustment, perception that private companies can enhance user experience with more data whereas government has malicious intent, levels of (potential) harm

- Conflicting privacy regimes tending to reinforce existing values

- Why Germany (or the EU generally) and the US have diverged in acceptance of levels of data privacy

Further Questions (for Future of Internet Discussion)

- As the Internet and technologies increasingly blur physical boundaries, how should we address national differences in privacy law?

- For Prof. Burkert: How do economics and concerns about the market inform the conversation about privacy? Do cost-based concerns about data protection regulation get much traction (as they do in the US).

- What (if any) is the relationship between the strong, protection-of-personality privacy law that has arisen in Germany and the more limited use of e-commerce and social media in Germany than in the US? More generally, how and why have attitudes toward privacy developed differently in Germany and the US?

- Given the economic implications of privacy regulation for e-commerce, how should regulators and policymakers be thinking about the policy process around privacy?

Talk:Privacy

2011-09-09T03:46:53Z

Adhir: New page: Summary and Key Thematic Areas During this session Professor (Doktor) Burkert first provided a history of data protection, an idea which the Germans “stole” from the U.S. and codified...

Summary and Key Thematic Areas
During this session Professor (Doktor) Burkert first provided a history of data protection, an idea which the Germans “stole” from the U.S. and codified in the 1970 Hesse Data Protection Act. It was a recognition that, somehow, data handling by machines makes people uncomfortable. This led to furious debate on the question tool -- do different contexts/entities handling the data (through machines) lead to different levels of user comfort? This debate turned to a comparison between the different perceptions and motivations of public and private parties in data collection and processing. Are governments more likely to use data for control, compared to a user experience motivation in the private sector? Or are the dangers of the private sector’s handling of such data equally problematic? This recalls JZ’s refrain that users are willingly marching toward a non-generative/controlled environment for the sake of convenience and enhanced user experience. One other interesting concept from Burkert’s presentation was the European Info Act’s emphasis on proportionality in evaluating whether or not data should be released: the need has to justify release of personal information.
Then Professor Malone provided an overview of the US approach to privacy, based on a notice and consent regime (aside from specific sectoral laws like HIPAA and FERPA) that is “transactional” and less nuanced than the European approach. He noted that the American approach, while effective in other areas, has serious deficiencies when it comes to adequately protecting or informing users of data-reliant services. He noted that terms of service very rarely draw scrutiny from the FTC, except when services fail to live up to their stated privacy policy (as with Google Buzz). Debate then ensued on the question tool about what kind of “notice and consent” regime would satisfy both consumer need for privacy and desire for a smooth interaction with a website interface. For example, how would consumers respond to piecemeal, instantaneous privacy notices (as opposed to a page wall of info), where the user would have to opt in each time information is collected. Would it disrupt the interaction too much to be viable? Professor Malone then also contrasted the reluctance of Europeans (in particular, Germans) to accept invasions on privacy with the American (more) liberal attitude toward it. For example, many people in Germany had chosen to opt out for having their homes displayed on Google’s street view, choosing instead to have them blurred. Professor Malone also proposed for us to look at public to private as a “continuum” rather than as binary modes. Lastly he provided a different kind of framework for looking at privacy: as contextual (which is how youngsters today view it) rather than absolute.
One poignant tweet interestingly weaved between Prof. Dr. Burkert’s lecture and Professor Malone’s, from KendraSerra, “Conflict between "right to be forgotten" and "right to speak" evident in European/American privacy views. #ilaw2011”, foreshadowing the many divergent views on privacy and Internet that cross geographic boundaries will surely encounter as it continues to evolve.

Key Areas of Debate
- Zittrain: Who are “European countries kidding” -- are hyper-strict privacy regimes are unrealistic?
- Why are people more comfortable with private companies like Google handling data than government? Possible theories are: differing levels of visibility in privacy encroachment (high for government, low for private companies), social adjustment, perception that private companies can enhance user experience with more data whereas government has malicious intent, levels of (potential) harm
- Conflicting privacy regimes tending to reinforce existing values
- Why Germany (or the EU generally) and the US have diverged in acceptance of levels of data privacy

Further Questions (for Future of Internet Discussion)
- As the Internet and technologies increasingly blur physical boundaries, how should we address national differences in privacy law?
- For Prof. Burkert: How do economics and concerns about the market inform the conversation about privacy? Do cost-based concerns about data protection regulation get much traction (as they do in the US).
- What (if any) is the relationship between the strong, protection-of-personality privacy law that has arisen in Germany and the more limited use of e-commerce and social media in Germany than in the US? More generally, how and why have attitudes toward privacy developed differently in Germany and the US?
- Given the economic implications of privacy regulation for e-commerce, how should regulators and policymakers be thinking about the policy process around privacy?

Talk:Evening Events

2011-09-02T04:49:24Z

Adhir:

==Sign-up for Poker with Charlie Nesson==

Space is unlimited! Add name and email address below to sign-up.

# Amrit (adhir(at)jd13.law.harvard.edu)
# Mayo Fuster Morell (mayo.fuster(at)eui.eu) > don't have a clue about poker, but curious
# Breanne (bgilpatrick@jd12.law.harvard.edu)
#
#
#
#
#

==Ideas for Food For Thought Dinners==
Add your ideas here!

==Food For Thought Dinner Sign-ups==

These dinners allow conference attendees to engage in self-organized informal, themed conversation with other conference participants. Since these dinners are self-organized, there is no limit to the number of dinners that can occur on Thursday evening. We have not yet made reservations for dinners at restaurants; so if any conference attendees are looking to initiate/host a dinner, you are responsible for organizing and making reservations and communications. Also, please note that dinner attendees are expected to pay their own dinner costs.

You may organize and sign-up for Food For Thought dinners below. All iLaw attendees are welcome to add their ideas for interesting topics or propose dinner locations.

Food For Thought dinners tend to work best when the group size is small enough to be intimate (around 8 people or so). For restaurants in Harvard Square, expect approximately a 10-minute walk from Austin. For restaurants in Porter Square, expect approximately a 15 to 20-minute walk from Austin.

===[http://www.citmedialaw.org/ Citizen Media Law Project], Temple Bar, [http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&q=temple+bar&near=Cambridge,+MA&fb=1&cid=0,0,13500899818381353596&sa=X&oi=local_result&resnum=1&ct=image 1688 Massachusetts Ave], 7p.m. - Mobile media and citizen journalism===

The CMLP will host a dinner at Temple Bar (1688 Massachusetts Ave.) on mobile media and citizen journalism, discussing recent events such as the BART phone blackout, arrests of citizens recording video in public (including the recent First Circuit decision in ''Glik v. Cunniffe''), and libel-by-tweet.

''Sign-up List'':

1. [http://www.cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/asellars Andy Sellars, Berkman Fellow]

2. [http://www.cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jhermes Jeff Hermes, Berkman Fellow]

3. Allison Trzop

4.

5.

6.

7.

=== [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/psuber Peter Suber], [http://www.casablanca-restaurant.com/ Casablanca], [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Casablanca,+40+Brattle+Street,+Cambridge,+MA+02138&aq=0&sll=42.373676,-71.121272&sspn=0.010431,0.016007&vpsrc=0&g=40+brattle+street+cambridge,+ma+02138&ie=UTF8&hq=Casablanca,&hnear=40+Brattle+St,+Cambridge,+Massachusetts+02138&ll=42.373589,-71.12139&spn=0.010431,0.016007&z=16 40 Brattle Street], 7p.m. - Open Access to Research ===

''Sign-up List'':

1. [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/psuber Peter Suber, Berkman Fellow]

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===Peer Production and Online Cooperation Research (Aaron Shaw and many others) Restaurant & Location t.b.d., 7p.m.===

Come join a group of Berkman Fellows and friends engaged in research into various aspects of peer production and online cooperation. Among those planning to attend are [http://mako.cc Mako Hill], [http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/degrees/gradprogram/sjd/sjd-current-students/jennifer-shkabatur.html Jennifer Shkabatur], [http://www.mit.edu/~amonroy/ Andres Monroy], [http://aaronshaw.org Aaron Shaw] and [http://www.onlinecreation.info Mayo Fuster Morell].

''Sign-up List'':

1. Mayo Fuster Morell

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 4] [Restaurant/Location/7p.m.]- [Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 5] [Restaurant/Location/7p.m.]- [Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 6] [Restaurant/Location/7p.m.]- [Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 7] [Restaurant/Location/7p.m.]- [Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Talk:Student Projects

2011-08-27T18:47:12Z

Adhir:

==SIGN-UP Sheet for Student Projects==

===Options A, B, D===

For students who wish to sign up for Options A, B, or D, please include your first and last name, and your selected assignment.

'''Note for students choosing Option A, please specify a session

* Ryan Rippel, Option A -- For Online Liberty and FOE, or Exploring the Arab Spring
* Jason Gross, Option A -- For Digital Libraries, Archives, and Rights Registries
* Andrew Crocker, Michael Hoven, Nathan Lovejoy, Sunshine Yin, and Amrit Dhir (All Option A) -- For Privacy
* Joel Knopf, Rachel Krol, Anayansi Rodriguez, Andrew Rubenstein, Taz Shahabuddin (All Option A) -- Cooperation
* Amanda Vaughn, Option A -- The Global Internet
*
*

===Option C===

Due to time constraints, Option C is available to a limited number (10) of groups on a first-come first-served basis. Students who select this option are encouraged to work in groups, each group will be given approximately 5-10 minutes of presentation time.

For students who select this option, please include your first and last name, as well as the names of any additional group members.

1. Ivar Hartmann

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Talk:Evening Events

2011-08-27T03:11:06Z

Adhir:

==Sign-up for Poker with Charlie Nesson==

Space is unlimited! Add name and email address below to sign-up.

# Amrit (adhir@jd13.law.harvard.edu)
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

==Ideas for Food For Thought Dinners==
Add your ideas here!

* I'd be happy to host/attend a dinner on open access to research. [mailto:psuber@cyber.law.harvard.edu Peter Suber] (note from David: Peter is a Berkman Fellow, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/psuber bio available here]).

==Food For Thought Dinner Sign-ups==

===[Organizer 1] [Restaurant/Location]--[Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 2] [Restaurant/Location]--[Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 3] [Restaurant/Location]--[Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Talk:Evening Events

2011-08-27T03:10:45Z

Adhir:

==Sign-up for Poker with Charlie Nesson==

Space is unlimited! Add name and email address below to sign-up.

# Amrit (adhir@jd13...)
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

==Ideas for Food For Thought Dinners==
Add your ideas here!

* I'd be happy to host/attend a dinner on open access to research. [mailto:psuber@cyber.law.harvard.edu Peter Suber] (note from David: Peter is a Berkman Fellow, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/psuber bio available here]).

==Food For Thought Dinner Sign-ups==

===[Organizer 1] [Restaurant/Location]--[Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 2] [Restaurant/Location]--[Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

===[Organizer 3] [Restaurant/Location]--[Topic of Conversation]===

''Sign-up List'':

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.