The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
Design-based solutions to confront technological privacy threats are becoming popular with regulators. However, these promising solutions have left the full potential of design untapped. With respect to online communication technologies, design-based solutions for privacy remain incomplete because they have yet to successfully address the trickiest aspect of the Internet — social interaction. This Article posits that privacy-protection strategies such as “Privacy by Design” face unique challenges with regard to social software and social technology due to their interactional nature.
The Michigan Law Review recently published “The Fight to Frame Privacy,” Woodrow Hartzog's book review of Daniel Solove’s “Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security.”
Read the full review here: http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/the-fight-to-frame-privacy
"As Stacey Dogan noted in her recent review of Bob Bone’s Taking the Confusion Out of “Likelihood of Confusion”: Toward a More Sensible Approach to Trademark Infringement, trademark law is at a bit of a crossroads. Scholars increasingly question basic tenets of trademark law and seek explanations for our blinkered theories of trademarks. Among recent attempts at comprehensive trademark law frameworks, some are good, some great, some … not."
As the military’s armed surveillance drones have become the iconic weapon of the early twenty-first century, they have also introduced radical transformations in the traditional labor of those who operate them the pilots, crew, analysts, and commanders. In so doing, these transformations have engendered new kinds of subjectivity, with new ways of experiencing the work of surveillance and killing.
For most of human history the essential nature of creativity was understood to be cumulative and collective. This notion has been largely forgotten by modern policies regulating creativity and speech. As hard as it may be to believe, the most valuable components of our immortal culture were created under a fully open regime as far as access to pre-existing expressions and reuse was concerned.
This Article consists of some general observations and a few examples that illustrate them. First, technology can benefit tremendously from government involvement. Regulation may be part of that involvement, but thinking just in terms of regu‐ lation obscures some important points. When people talk about regulating technology, they usually assume technology is a private good, and the question becomes whether—and how— the government should regulate private property. This ob‐ scures the truth that technology is frequently a product of pub‐ lic and private collaboration.
“Today we are well underway to a solution of the traffic problem.”1 This claim, made by Robert Moses in 1948, is as true today as it was then. Which is to say, not at all. In the middle of the last century, the preferred solution to “the traffic problem” was more cement: new highways, bridges, and lanes.