Patel v. Facebook, Inc.: The Collection, Storage, and Use of Biometric Data as a Concrete Injury under BIPA

Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) amassed one of the most extensive facial- template databases in the world through the use of facial-recognition technology. However, Facebook is not alone; both private and public sector entities are heavily investing in improving their facial-identification technology. Facial geometry data are unique to each person and can be used to identify an individual. Once a facial image has been captured and stored in a facial-template database, “the individual has no recourse” because one cannot change facial geometry as quickly as a password or a social security number. Although companies may use facial-recognition technology for valid purposes, uses of facial-recognition technology to target specific groups raise “questions around abuse, consent, weaponization, and discriminatory uses of this technology.” From a privacy standpoint, the potential use of facial-recognition technology to search against millions of photographs without the consent of “law-abiding citizens is a major privacy violation.” These concerns have fueled an increase in data privacy legislation as well as litigation, such as Patel v. Facebook, Inc

Constructing group membership through talk in the field

Constructing group membership through talk in the fiel

A discourse analysis of “social construction” in communication scholarship

How has the phrase “social construction” been used among communication scholars over the past 45 years? This paper characterizes some of the ways in which “social construction” as an idea has been taken up in communication scholarship. In particular, the paper considers what is useful and what is problematic in the different ways social construction is used. First, this paper presents trends in usage, particularly from the early 1990s onward, in several top communication journals. Second, ways of using the concept are analyzed in published articles. Third, discourse about social construction and uses of the phrase are examined in three state-of-the art fora in light of the tensions and questions of doing social construction research. Finally, practical implications for the continuing usefulness of the term are considered

Exclusion in gossipy talk: Highjacking the preference structure for ingroup belonging

This paper employs discourse analysis and draws on interdisciplinary approaches to examine how identity is constructed in conversation. The purpose of the paper is twofold: to present an argument for a particular exclusionary practice in everyday life; and to show how this practice is revealed through discourse analytic methods. Specifically, the analysis describes how extremely negative moral assessments about outgroup identity-related behaviour constitute a high-risk strategy for ingrouping with co-participants in ordinary face-to-face interactions. Demonstrating this strategy shows how discourse analysis can provide a frame through which to understand what interactional resources are available to people and therefore how we might reflect on the relationship between local exclusionary practices and broader social phenomena such as racism and sexism

Extreme case (re)formulation as a practice for making hearably racist talk repairable

This article investigates the interactional organization of racism through participant production and uptake of explicit racial membership categories across a corpus of 50+ hours of audio-/video-recorded interaction in three U.S. states. The discourse analysis examines one participant method for addressing “hearably racist” talk: echoing extreme versions of the problematic utterance to provide opportunities for repair work on inferable associations between membership categories and category-bound activities. Orienting to implicit inferential material as the source of trouble licenses participant account-seeking; treating the racism as a repairable downgrades its status as an overt instance of racism

Troubles with assessments in gifting occasions

This article analyzes gift-exchange occasions as both a sequentially organized activity and as a ritual practice imbued with social and cultural meaning. Specifically, the article focuses on the role of assessments in gifting sequences, the distribution of assessments across participants, and some of the possible troubles which can arise in doing assessments of gifts based on discourse analysis of 44 gifting situations in one family’s 30 home videos spanning 13 years. I argue that participants encounter difficulties in the process of proffering assessments of gifts, and that such troubles revolve around the dilemma of constructing positive assessments as authentically given. The analysis discusses the organization of action in gifting occasions, outlines the expectations and dilemmas involved in doing assessments of gifts, and presents participants’ discursive practices for managing potential troubles in gift assessment

Building up by tearing down

This paper analyzes mockery sequences among a group of friends to examine how this discursive practice mobilizes categories to manage stances toward differences and to construct group norms and boundaries. Using discourse analysis, I inspect how non-seriously tearing down or jocularly teasing/mocking participants within a peer group manages the practical problem of ingroup difference by reaffirming shared stances and norms around masculinity. The analysis highlights some of the ways in which groups navigate difference and identity moment-to-moment in interaction, showing how the moral organization of ingroup and outgroup assessments are built in the mundane world of conversation

Misunderstanding as a resource in interaction

The phenomenon of misunderstanding is a recurrent feature of everyday life—sometimes a source of frustration, sometimes a site of blame. But misunderstandings can also be seen as getting interactants out of (as well as into) trouble. For example, misunderstandings may be produced to deal with disaffiliative implications of ‘not being on the same page,’ and as such they may be deployed as a resource for avoiding trouble. This paper examines misunderstanding as a pragmatic accomplishment, focusing on the uses to which it is put in interactions as a practice for dealing with threats to intersubjectivity: the extent to which persons are aligned in terms of a current referent, activity, assessment, etc. A multimodal discourse analysis of audio and video recordings of naturally-occurring talk inspects moments in which misunderstandings are purported or displayed (rather than overtly invoked) as well as how such misunderstandings are oriented to as simply-repairable references, versus inferential matters more misaligned and potentially fraught. Rather than being a straightforward reflection of an experience of trouble with understanding, misunderstanding may also be collaboratively produced to manage practical challenges to intersubjectivity

Digital Commons: A Community on the Move!

Digital Commons users are among the most active and successful communities taking on the challenges of deploying scholarly communication and repository-based services. Bepress is thrilled to partner with the community and help drive success in the local campus community. Dave and Jessica will provide a brief update about projects across the community, some statistics, and a look at some recent and upcoming enhancements to Digital Commons

Managing blame for racism in broadcast media

How do people negotiate blame for racism? In this article we focus on how participants manage the blameworthiness of racism—as a problem in society, and in relation to specific racist incidents—by scrutinising how sources of racism are formulated in broadcast media. This research develops our understanding of how racism is constructed in society as well as how blame functions to allocate responsibility to different parties. By examining racism as a conversational topic and blaming as a social action, our analysis develops important research into how racism is understood at this time in history and considers what the consequences might be of how blame is allocated for it