2,707 research outputs found

    Coordination by Default

    Get PDF

    Incommensurability as a Jurisprudential Puzzle

    Get PDF

    Why Pragmatism? The Puzzling Place of Pragmatism in Critical Theory

    Get PDF

    Notice and Choice Must Go: The Collective Control Alternative

    Get PDF
    Over twenty years of criticism conclusively confirm that Notice and Choice results in, as the law professor Fred Cate puts it, “the worst of all worlds: privacy protection is not enhanced, individuals and businesses pay the cost of bureaucratic laws.” So why is it still the dominant legislative and regulatory approach to ensuring adequate informational privacy online? Recent implementations of Notice and Choice include the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, and California’s Consumer Protection Privacy Act. There is a well-known alternative (advanced by Helen Nissenbaum and others) that sees informational privacy as arising from social norms that require conformity to shared expectations about selective information flows. So why have twenty years of criticism been so ineffective in turning the tide from Notice and Choice to the social norm alternative? One plausible factor is that the Notice and Choice criticisms detail the flaws but do not adequately motivate the turn to the social norms. A motivationally compelling critique would show how and why the failure of Notice and Choice, properly understood, reveals the undeniable need for the collective control alternative provide by social norms. That does not yet exist in the Notice and Choice literature. Notice and Choice Must Go: The Collective Control Alternative remedies that lack

    Impossible Comparisons and Rational Choice Theory

    Get PDF

    Topics in Jurisprudence

    Get PDF

    Spam and Beyond: Freedom, Efficiency, and the Regulation of E-mail Advertising, 22 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 141 (2003)

    Get PDF
    Traditional forms of mailing advertisers bear the full cost of delivering advertisements to consumers. However, this is not true in the form of all e-mail advertisement, spam or not. E-mail users subsidize part of any e-mail advertisement, thereby splitting costs between advertiser and the consumer who receives the e-mail advertisement. This article takes the position that the subsidization that occurs in e-mail advertisement should be eliminated because it unjustifiably violates individual freedom. The article discusses why the delivery charges between sender and recipient are divided, why such cost-division violates freedom, and whether the violation is justified. The article also defines spam and discusses why the sending of spam unjustifiably violates freedom. A statute is proposed to redress that situation. Non-spam advertisement is discussed, also with the stance that non-spam advertisement is also unjustifiably violates freedom and a second statute is suggested to remedy the situation. Finally, the article concludes with the question of how approaches to spam ought to be applied to non-advertising e-mail

    Excluding Reasons: Impossible Comparisons and the Law

    Get PDF
    • …
    corecore