On the Privacy Practices of Just Plain Sites

In addition to visiting high profile sites such as Facebook and Google, web users often visit more modest sites, such as those operated by bloggers, or by local organizations such as schools. Such sites, which we call "Just Plain Sites" (JPSs) are likely to inadvertently represent greater privacy risks than high profile sites by virtue of being unable to afford privacy expertise. To assess the prevalence of the privacy risks to which JPSs may inadvertently be exposing their visitors, we analyzed a number of easily observed privacy practices of such sites. We found that many JPSs collect a great deal of information from their visitors, share a great deal of information about their visitors with third parties, permit a great deal of tracking of their visitors, and use deprecated or unsafe security practices. Our goal in this work is not to scold JPS operators, but to raise awareness of these facts among both JPS operators and visitors, possibly encouraging the operators of such sites to take greater care in their implementations, and visitors to take greater care in how, when, and what they share.Comment: 10 pages, 7 figures, 6 tables, 5 authors, and a partridge in a pear tre

Combatting disability discrimination: a comparison of France and Great Britain

This article examines disabled people’s employment in Great Britain and France. Although both countries have poor rates of employment for disabled people compared to non-disabled people, Great Britain’s disabled people’s employment rate is lower than France’s. Possible explanations include weak enforcement mechanisms in Great Britain, British judicial resistance, the lack of an institutional role for British trade unions resulting in an implementation gap and the proactive form of French law, a quota-levy scheme, which has no British parallel. The conclusions suggest which of these explanations are the most plausible and propose that Great Britain considers adopting some French provisions, thus tempering Britain’s voluntarist approach

Police surveillance of cell phone location data: Supreme Court versus public opinion

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. As technology evolves, courts must examine Fourth Amendment concerns implicated by the introduction of new and enhanced police surveillance techniques. Recent Supreme Court cases have demonstrated a trend towards reconsidering the mechanical application of traditional Fourth Amendment doctrine to define the scope of constitutional protections for modern technological devices and personal data. The current research examined whether public opinion regarding privacy rights in electronic communications is in accordance with these Supreme Court rulings. Results suggest that cell phone location data is perceived as more private and deserving of protections than other types of location data, but the privacy of other types of information recorded on cell phones is valued even more than location data. These results have implications for the police and courts considering how the Fourth Amendment will apply to smart phone technologies