BibliographyType,ISBN,Identifier,Author,Title,Journal,Volume,Number,Month,Pages,Year,Address,Note,URL,Booktitle,Chapter,Edition,Series,Editor,Publisher,ReportType,Howpublished,Institution,Organizations,School,Annote,Custom1,Custom2,Custom3,Custom4,Custom5
7,"","solove2008","Solove, Daniel J.","Data Mining and the Security-Liberty Debate","University of Chicago Law Review",74,,"","",2008,"","","lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/archive/v75/75_1/Solove.pdf ","","","","","","","","","","","","","In this essay, written for a symposium on surveillance for the University of Chicago Law Review, I examine some common difficulties in the way that liberty is balanced against security in the context of data mining. Countless discussions about the trade-offs between security and liberty begin by taking a security proposal and then weighing it against what it would cost our civil liberties. Often, the liberty interests are cast as individual rights and balanced against the security interests, which are cast in terms of the safety of society as a whole. Courts and commentators defer to the government's assertions about the effectiveness of the security interest. In the context of data mining, the liberty interest is limited by narrow understandings of privacy that neglect to account for many privacy problems. As a result, the balancing concludes with a victory in favor of the security interest. But as I argue, important dimensions of data mining's security benefits require more scrutiny, and the privacy concerns are significantly greater than currently acknowledged. These problems have undermined the balancing process and skewed the results toward the security side of the scale.","","NSA balancing data deference liberty mining privacy security stasi2.0 surveillance ","",""
7,"","Sol_2007b","Solove, Daniel J.","'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy","San Diego Law Review",44,,"","745 pp.",2007,"","","http://ssrn.com/paper=998565","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","identity privacy protection web wide world ","",""
7,"","solove07privacymisunderstandings","Solove, Daniel J.","'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy","San Diego Law Review, GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper",44,289,"","",2007,"","","http://ssrn.com/paper=998565","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","data_mining misunderstandings nothing_to_hide privacy social_networks ","",""
7,"","solove07privacymisunderstandings","Solove, Daniel J.","'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy","San Diego Law Review, GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper",44,289,"","",2007,"","","http://ssrn.com/paper=998565","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","Privacy ","",""
7,"","Solove2007ign","Solove, Daniel J.","I've got nothing to hide and other misunderstandings of privacy","San Diego Law Review",44,289,"","745",2007,"","Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School; J.D., Yale Law School.","http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565","","","","GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper","","","","","","","",""," In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: "I've got nothing to hide." According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.","","datamining privacy ","",""
7,"","solove2007vgn","Solove, Daniel J.","“I’VE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE” AND OTHER MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF PRIVACY","San Diego Law Review",44,289,"","745",2007,"","Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School; J.D., Yale Law School.","http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565","","","","GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper","","","","","","","",""," In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: "I've got nothing to hide." According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.","","datamining privacy ","",""
7,"","Solove:2007p2012","Solove, Daniel J","The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet","SSRN",,,"Jan","",2007,"","","http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1019177","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","imported ","",""
7,"","Solove_2005","Solove, Daniel J.","A Taxonomy of Privacy","University of Pennsylvania Law Review",154,3,"January","477 pp.",2006,"","GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 129","http://ssrn.com/paper=667622","","","","","","","","","","","",""," 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.","","identity philosophy privacy taxonomy ","",""
7,"","solove_conceptualizing_2002","Solove, Daniel J.","Conceptualizing Privacy","California Law Review",90,,"","1087-1155",2002,"","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","imported ","",""
7,"","Sol_Hoo_2006","Solove, Daniel J. & Hoofnagle, Chris J.","A Model Regime of Privacy Protection","GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper",,132,"","",2006,"","","http://ssrn.com/paper=881294","","","Version 3.0","Accepted Paper Series","","","","","","","",""," 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. ","","databases databrokers identity legislation privacy protection regulation theft ","",""