The Experts below are selected from a list of 6741 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Lior Strahilevitz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • toward a positive theory of Privacy law
    Harvard Law Review, 2013
    Co-Authors: Lior Strahilevitz
    Abstract:

    Privacy protections create winners and losers. So does the absence of Privacy protections. The distributive implications of governmental decisions regarding Privacy are often very significant, but they can be subtle too. Policy and academic debates over Privacy rules tend not to emphasize the distributive dimensions of those rules, (1) and many Privacy advocates mistakenly believe that all consumers and voters win when Privacy is enhanced. At the same time, Privacy skeptics who do discuss Privacy in distributive terms sometimes score cheap rhetorical points by suggesting that only those with shameful secrets to hide benefit from Privacy protections. Neither approach is appealing, and Privacy scholars ought to do better. This Article reveals some of the subtleties of Privacy regulation, with a particular focus on the distributive consequences of Privacy rules. The Article suggests that understanding the identities of Privacy law's real winners and losers is indispensable both to clarifying existing debates in the scholarship and to helping predict which interests will prevail in the institutions that formulate Privacy rules. Drawing on public choice theory and median voter models, I begin to construct a positive account of why U.S. Privacy law looks the way it does. I also suggest that a key structural aspect of U.S. Privacy law--its absence of a catch-all Privacy Provision nimble enough to confront new threats--affects the attitudes of American voters and the balance of power among interest groups. Along the way, I make several other subsidiary contributions: I show why criminal history registries are quite likely to become increasingly granular over time, I examine the relationship between data mining and personality-based discrimination, and I explain how the U.S. political system might be just as biased in favor of citizens who do not value Privacy as it is biased in favor of highly educated and high-income citizens. Part I assesses the distributive implications of two Privacy controversies: the extent to which public figures should be protected from the nonconsensual disclosure of information concerning their everyday activities, and the extent to which the law should suppress criminal history information. In both instances the United States is far less protective of Privacy interests than Europe is, and, as a result, the U.S. government has received criticism both at home and abroad. The Part shows that defensible distributive judgments undergird the American positions. The European approach to celebrity Privacy is highly regressive and causes elites and nonelites to have differential access to information that is valuable to both groups. The U.S. attitude toward criminal history information may be defended on pragmatic grounds: in the absence of transparent criminal history information, individuals may try to use pernicious proxies for criminal history, like race and gender. Part I then shows how these distributive implications affect the politics of Privacy. To use one example, California's interest groups are pushing that state toward European-style regulation, and there is an apparent emerging trend toward ever-increasing granularity in criminal history disclosures. Part II analyzes the emerging issue of Big Data and consumer Privacy. It posits that firms rely on Big Data (data mining and analytics) to tease out the individual personality characteristics that will affect the firms' strategies about how to price products and deliver services to particular consumers. We cannot anticipate how the law will respond to the challenges posed by Big Data without assessing who gains and who loses by the shift toward new forms of personality discrimination, so the Article analyzes the likely winners and losers among voters and industry groups. The analysis focuses on population segments characterized by high levels of extraversion and sophistication, whose preferences and propensities to influence political decisions may deviate from those of introverts and unsophisticated individuals in important ways. …

R Stephen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • reserving the right does a constitutional marriage amendment necessarily trump an earlier and more general equal protection or Privacy Provision
    The Seton Hall Law Review, 2006
    Co-Authors: R Stephen
    Abstract:

    Efforts to amend constitutions at both the state and federal level have proliferated since the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declared in its 2003 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision that the exclusion of lesbians and gay men from the benefits and protections of marriage is “incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.” In the two years following Goodridge, three other lower court judges, in California, New York, and Washington, have ruled that those state constitutions likewise guarantee same-sex couples the right to marry. Responding to the recent lesbian and gay victories in state court, opponents of same-sex marriage have successfully lobbied fourteen states to adopt state constitutional amendments that prohibit same-sex marriage. Four other states

Krzyzanowski Brittany - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Enabling Neighborhood Health Research and Protecting Patient Privacy
    2021
    Co-Authors: Krzyzanowski Brittany
    Abstract:

    University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation. August 2021. Major: Geography. Advisors: Steven Manson, Michael Oakes. 1 computer file (PDF); vi, 129 pages.Maps and spatial analysis offer a more comprehensive understanding of complex neighborhood health relationships, and yet there is a remarkable lack of maps within the literature on neighborhood health. Review of the literature confirmed that only a small proportion of articles on neighborhood health (28%) contained maps. Despite this, our subsequent survey showed that the majority (63%) of investigators created maps, worked with maps, or used mapping software to explore their data at some point during their study. Neighborhood health investigators are not neglecting to explore the spatial nature of their data, but rather, they are just not publishing the maps that they are using. One of the major barriers identified by our survey was Privacy regulations, such as HIPAA law, which stood as a direct barrier for 14% of survey respondents who created maps but did not share them. Many researchers find core elements of the HIPAA Privacy Provision specific to map data ambiguous or difficult to understand, which is reflected in disagreement and uncertainty in research and policy circles on how to enact this Provision. This dissertation provides a thorough examination of the safe harbor Provision and elucidates the ambiguity within the law to encourage safe and effective sharing of mapped patient data. Moreover, many scholars and policy makers have challenged this rule, saying that it is possible to share finer-grained mapped health data without jeopardizing patient Privacy. One promising strategy is regionalization, or zone design, which offers a way to build finer-grained geographical units in ways that integrate the HIPAA safe harbor requirements. This dissertation explores two existing regionalization methods (Max P Regions and REDCAP) and also introduces two novel variants of these approaches (MSOM and RSOM) which we compare and contrast in terms of fitness for analysis and display of protected health information. Each regionalization procedure has its own strengths and weaknesses, but REDCAP provides the best overall performance. In general, all of the regionalization procedures produced contiguous regions that result in a better resolution map than the current standard for sharing patient data and offer to help investigators work within the bounds of Privacy Provisions to share maps and spatial data