INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

, , , ,

The Limitations of Privacy Reform Rooted in Interest Convergence

, , , ,

By Margaret Foster

A year and a half ago, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Protection Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. Though the bill was simultaneously hailed as a “groundbreaking,” “extremely powerful,” “landmark law,” and criticized as a “punitive . . . mistake,” there’s no dispute that it is currently the strongest privacy law in America, garnering comparisons to the European Union’s sweeping General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Kari Paul, California’s Groundbreaking Privacy Law Takes Effect in January. What Does It Do?, The Guardian (Dec. 30, 2019); Zack Whittaker, Silicon Valley Is Terrified of California’s Privacy Law. Good., TechCrunch (Sept. 19, 2019); Natasha Singer, Group Behind California Privacy Law Aims to Strengthen It, The New York Times (Sept. 24, 2019) . . .

,

In Defense of Cambridge Analytica: We Really Should be Blaming Surveillance Capitalism

,

By Christie Dougherty

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued Cambridge Analytica’s epitaph in late November 2019, when it published its settlement opinion. So, it came as a surprise to many Twitter users on January 1, 2020 as they scrolled through their feeds and read: “Data analytics firm #SCLGroup shut down amidst scandal when extensive data work in the shadows of elections globally was called into question via subsidiary #CambridgeAnalytica. To avoid document confiscation, SCL went bankrupt. Its [sic] time to release the files. #Hindsightis2020.” @HindsightFiles, Twitter (Jan. 1, 2020).  Brittany Kaiser, former Cambridge Analytica business development director, blew the whistle on the company back in 2018 and now has begun leaking internal documents on Twitter under the username @HindsightFiles, stating that “democracy has been hacked.” @HindsightFiles, Twitter (Jan. 1, 2020). . .

, , , , , ,

Smartphones and Compelled Decryption: An Interview with Attorney David Rangaviz

, , , , , ,

By David Rangaviz and Miranda Jang

Under what circumstances can a citizen be forced to unlock their smartphone for government inspection? On March 6, 2019, the Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. Dennis Jones, in which the Court held that the government can compel a suspect to unlock their smartphone, and so disclose all of its contents, if it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect knows the passcode to the phone in question. The SJC held that the only “testimonial” aspect to an act of decryption is just the person saying that he or she knows the code to the target phone. Jones was the first decision from any state supreme court in the country to set out the constitutional rules around compelled decryption, which is one of the most significant self-incrimination issues in the digital age . . .

Measuring Health Privacy – Part II

By Ignacio Cofone

We are pleased to present this symposium featuring commentary from participants in the Center for Health Policy and Law’s annual conference, Promises and Perils of Emerging Health Innovations, held on April 11-12, 2019 at Northeastern University School of Law. As a note, additional detailed analyses of issues discussed during the conference will be published in the 2021 Winter Issue of the Northeastern University Law Review . . .

Measuring Health Privacy – Part I

By Ignacio Cofone

We are pleased to present this symposium featuring commentary from participants in the Center for Health Policy and Law’s annual conference, Promises and Perils of Emerging Health Innovations, held on April 11-12, 2019 at Northeastern University School of Law. As a note, additional detailed analyses of issues discussed during the conference will be published in the 2021 Winter Issue of the Northeastern University Law Review. . .