The Puzzle of Privacy

A number of recent news stories have made me wonder more about privacy. It's not just that the threats to privacy are increasing; rather, the problem is that the countervailing forces are becoming very much stronger. Was Scott McNealy right when he told us that we had no privacy and that we should just "get over it"

A Long-Standing Debate: Reflections on \u3ci\u3eRisk and Anxiety: A Theory of Data Breach Harms\u3c/i\u3e by Daniel Solove and Danielle Keats Citron

This jointly-authored Article contributes mightily to our understanding of a critical aspect of privacy: harm. As Professors Solove and Citron carefully evidence, courts are reticent to countenance the harms that flow from a violation of privacy, even as they compensate similar harms in other contexts. Thus while exposing a plaintiff to an environmental or health risk may be compensable, few decisions vindicate victims of a data breach unless or until they experience actual identity theft. Courts have recognized subjective harms such as fear since the night W de S threw his fateful axe at M de S. But courts seldom recognize harm in anxieties over data exposure so significant that they have contributed to suicide. Despite my widespread agreement with Risk and Anxiety, I suspect the analysis is missing a step. Presumably Congress can create a protectable interest—including a privacy interest—where none existed before. The question is whether Congress, with enough specificity of intent, could create a right to be free from privacy risk or anxiety or whether the very nature of these injuries somehow offends Article III. In this way, privacy harm turns out to be an interesting testing ground for a longstanding debate about the limits of legislatively conferred standing. And solving the puzzle of privacy harm arguably requires addressing this debate directly

Cookies, pop-ups and commercials: How tech companies\u27 privacy promises are preserving their data dominance

As antitrust sentiment focused on Big Tech from regulators and consumers grows, companies like Google and Apple and more have announced plans to move away from the behavioral ad business model that brought the companies to the size they are today. This trend is marketed to customers as a way to address their growing concerns over privacy and data collection. It also comes as the companies face sweeping antitrust litigation and legislation that would break up the firms. But the companies\u27 claims of moving towards privacy are sketchy at best, and appear to serve as a way for the companies to maintain dominance in a changing landscape. This interactive, text-based story investigates how Big Tech is appearing to break themselves up, while simultaneously getting regulators off their backs and reducing competition