Privacy Regulation - Revision history

Tom: /* Legal Definitions */

2024-05-13T18:57:11Z

‎Legal Definitions

Tom: /* Solutions */

2024-05-13T18:55:46Z

‎Solutions

Tom: /* Washington */

2021-07-29T16:14:27Z

‎Washington

Tom: /* California */

2021-07-29T16:13:55Z

‎California

Tom: /* Solutions */

2018-08-28T19:16:43Z

‎Solutions

Tom: /* Solutions */

2018-08-19T18:33:12Z

‎Solutions

Tom: /* European Union */

2018-08-19T18:32:48Z

‎European Union

Tom: /* Solutions */

2018-08-19T18:31:21Z

‎Solutions

Tom: /* Context */

2018-08-19T18:26:33Z

‎Context

Tom: /* Context */

2018-08-19T18:26:08Z

‎Context

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 ==Legal Definitions==
 The privacy law canon: What are the top 5 privacy law articles of the past generation? There’s been so much spectacular scholarship, and a sea change in law and policies, that it’s really difficult to select. And I apologize in advance for the many, many great contributions not listed here. All are worthy, but here are a few to start:
-***
+* Daniel Solove, A Taxonomy of Privacy (Penn. L. Rev. 2006). No scholar has been as prolific – and has left such a mark on privacy law and policy – as Dan. I chose his taxonomy, which categorizes privacy harms, since it set forth a common nomenclature for our field that everyone uses today. It begins with the immortal words, “Privacy is a concept in disarray. Nobody can articulate what it means.” Thanks to Dan, we understand it much better. https://lnkd.in/eQQwVX-X
 * James Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty (Yale L. J. 2004). This iconic piece set the stage for the epic clashes between the EU and US privacy frameworks. In short, Whitman explains that while Americans view privacy as an aspect of liberty (typically vs. government overreach), Europeans consider it part of human dignity (often vs. commodification by corporations). https://lnkd.in/ea3fF2ip
 * Danielle Citron, Technological Due Process (Wash. U. L. Rev. 2008). Fifteen years ago, this piece presaged the emergence of AI law. It predicts the risks of algorithmic decision making and the “automated state” on individuals’ due process rights and – to use Whitman’s categories – liberty *and* dignity. https://lnkd.in/ettkv_Aq
-* Joel Reidenberg, Privacy Wrongs in Search of Remedies (Hastings L. J. 2002). Reidenberg – who started writing about privacy and data protection in the mid 1990s – was incredibly prolific. I really like this article, since it cuts to the central challenge in US privacy law: articulating privacy harms and calibrating legal remedies.
+* Joel Reidenberg, Privacy Wrongs in Search of Remedies (Hastings L. J. 2002). Reidenberg – who started writing about privacy and data protection in the mid 1990s – was incredibly prolific. I really like this article, since it cuts to the central challenge in US privacy law: articulating privacy harms and calibrating legal remedies. https://lnkd.in/emsRchrJ
 * Julie Cohen, Examined Lives: Informational Privacy and the Subject as Object (Stan. L. Rev. 2000). Julie Cohen is the preeminent legal philosopher of privacy. For me personally, her 2000 article in a Stanford Law Review symposium was one of the reasons I decided to enter privacy. In it, Cohen unpacks some of the colossal power structures that intersect in privacy law, including liberty, property, speech, economic efficiency and technology.  https://lnkd.in/eEwQvQfS
 * Paul Schwartz, Privacy and Democracy in Cyberspace (Vand. L. Rev. 1999). I know I said five…. But the privacy canon wouldn’t be what it is without Paul. This article charted a path for the next 20 years of scholarship on online privacy. https://lnkd.in/ewkBZxME
 ==Solutions==
 This page focuses on two jurisdictions which are currently active in creating [[Privacy Regulation]]. For more detail see the page on [[Privacy]].

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 * You are a crook or deviant.
 ==Solutions==
 This page focuses on two jurisdictions which are currently active in creating [[Privacy Regulation]]. For more detail see the page on [[Privacy]].

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 ===Washington===
 The sticking point in Washington is the right of private action which was stripped from the California law to enable passage.
-* [https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/washington-privacy-act-passes-senate-7961122/ The Senate have passed a Privacy regulation for the third year in a row.]  2021-03
+* [https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/washington-privacy-act-passes-senate-7961122/ The Senate has passed a Privacy regulation for the third year in a row.]  2021-03
 * [https://iapp.org/news/a/the-washington-privacy-act-is-back/ The Washington Privacy Act is back] 2020-09

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 * First-in-the-nation consumer privacy rights are the law of the land in California!<ref>CA Privacy Web Site https://www.caprivacy.org/</ref>
 * The California State Attorney General’s recommendations for mobile privacy: [http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/privacy/privacy_on_the_go.pdf Privacy on the Go: Recommendations for the Mobile Ecosystem]
 ==References==

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ==Solutions==
-This page focuses on two jurisdictions which are currently active in creating [[Privacy Regulation]].
+This page focuses on two jurisdictions which are currently active in creating [[Privacy Regulation]]. For more detail see the page on [[Privacy]].
 ===European Union===
 * See the page on [[GDPR]] which went into effect on 2018-06-24.

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 We will focus on two jurisdictions which are currently active in creating [[Privacy Regulation]].
 ===European Union===
 ===California===
 * First-in-the-nation consumer privacy rights are the law of the land in California!<ref>CA Privacy Web Site https://www.caprivacy.org/</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:31, 19 August 2018
Line 34:		Line 34:

	==Solutions==		==Solutions==
		+	We will focus on two jurisdictions which are currently active in creating [[Privacy Regulation]].
		+	===European Union===
		+	===California===
		+	* First-in-the-nation consumer privacy rights are the law of the land in California!<ref>CA Privacy Web Site https://www.caprivacy.org/</ref>
		+	* The California State Attorney General’s recommendations for mobile privacy: [http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/privacy/privacy_on_the_go.pdf Privacy on the Go: Recommendations for the Mobile Ecosystem]

	==References==		==References==

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 There are four [[Entity|entities]] that are in play here. In most legislation all of the [[Entity|entities]] beside the user are considered in one lump as [[Data Controller]]s.
-#The [[user]] on a user device (aka a user agent).
+#The [[user]] on a user device (aka a [[User Agent]]).
 #The resource provider (aka a [[Relying Party]].)
 #[[Identifier or Attribute Provider]]s.