@article{Sol_2007b,
	title = {'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy},
	author = {Daniel J. Solove},
	journal = {San Diego Law Review},
	pages = {745 pp.},
	url = {http://ssrn.com/paper=998565},
	volume = {44},
	year = {2007},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ecf194247babbdde92b9c492fe5a9a73/dawinci},
	keywords = {identity privacy protection web wide world }
}

@article{Solove_2005,
	title = {A Taxonomy of Privacy},
	author = {Daniel J. Solove},
	journal = {University of Pennsylvania Law Review},
	month = {January},
	note = {GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 129},
	number = {3},
	pages = {477 pp.},
	url = {http://ssrn.com/paper=667622},
	volume = {154},
	year = {2006},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2d6436a5855d49e7db832a2c98e12bab8/dawinci},
	abstract = { Privacy is a concept in disarray. Nobody can articulate what it means. As one commentator has observed, privacy suffers from an embarrassment of meanings. Privacy is far too vague a concept to guide adjudication and lawmaking, as abstract incantations of the importance of privacy do not fare well when pitted against more concretely-stated countervailing interests.

In 1960, the famous torts scholar William Prosser attempted to make sense of the landscape of privacy law by identifying four different interests. But Prosser focused only on tort law, and the law of information privacy is significantly more vast and complex, extending to Fourth Amendment law, the constitutional right to information privacy, evidentiary privileges, dozens of federal privacy statutes, and hundreds of state statutes. Moreover, Prosser wrote over 40 years ago, and new technologies have given rise to a panoply of new privacy harms.

A new taxonomy to understand privacy violations is thus sorely needed. This article develops a taxonomy to identify privacy problems in a comprehensive and concrete manner. It endeavors to guide the law toward a more coherent understanding of privacy and to serve as a framework for the future development of the field of privacy law.},
	keywords = {identity philosophy privacy taxonomy }
}

@article{Sol_Hoo_2006,
	title = {A Model Regime of Privacy Protection},
	author = {Daniel J. Solove and Chris J. Hoofnagle},
	edition = {Version 3.0},
	journal = {GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper},
	number = {132},
	series = {Accepted Paper Series},
	url = {http://ssrn.com/paper=881294},
	year = {2006},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/20b6a371b297f128b6ffd9ca18f6760ab/dawinci},
	abstract = { A series of major security breaches at companies with sensitive personal information has sparked significant attention to the problems with privacy protection in the United States. Currently, the privacy protections in the United States are riddled with gaps and weak spots. Although most industrialized nations have comprehensive data protection laws, the United States has maintained a sectoral approach where certain industries are covered and others are not. In particular, emerging companies known as "commercial data brokers" have frequently slipped through the cracks of U.S. privacy law. In this article, the authors propose a Model Privacy Regime to address the problems in the privacy protection in the United States, with a particular focus on commercial data brokers. Since the United States is unlikely to shift radically from its sectoral approach to a comprehensive data protection regime, the Model Regime aims to patch up the holes in existing privacy regulation and improve and extend it. In other words, the goal of the Model Regime is to build upon the existing foundation of U.S. privacy law, not to propose an alternative foundation. The authors believe that the sectoral approach in the United States can be improved by applying the Fair Information Practices - principles that require the entities that collect personal data to extend certain rights to data subjects. The Fair Information Practices are very general principles, and they are often spoken about in a rather abstract manner. In contrast, the Model Regime demonstrates specific ways that they can be incorporated into privacy regulation in the United States. },
	keywords = {databases databrokers identity legislation privacy protection regulation theft }
}