Privacy Wrongs in Search of Remedies

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 2003-08-26 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.434585
J. Reidenberg
{"title":"Privacy Wrongs in Search of Remedies","authors":"J. Reidenberg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.434585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The American legal system has generally rejected legal rights for data privacy and relies instead on market self-regulation and the litigation process to establish norms of appropriate behavior in society. Information privacy is protected only through an amalgam of narrowly targeted rules. The aggregation of these specific rights leaves many significant gaps and fewer clear remedies for violations of fair information practices. With an absence of well-established legal rights, privacy wrongs are currently in search of remedies. The American public is beginning to demand that data privacy violators be held accountable. In a recent survey, Internet users overwhelmingly called for sanctions ranging from jail time to blacklisting of organizations that failed to respect privacy policies. Public enforcement actions and private law suits in the United States are just emerging as an important force in the creation of adequate protection for citizens' personal information in American society. This Article first describes privacy rights and wrongs that frame the search for remedies in the United States. In particular, this section focuses on two different types of harm created by the misuse of personal information and the desire to find protective rights: personal or private wrongs and public or societal wrongs. Next this Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General have become important enforcers against personal wrongs, but their efforts fall short of accomplishing systematic change and fail to provide individual victims with any real remedy. The third part of this Article examines private claims for privacy wrongs. This section explores some tortured efforts to obtain redress for privacy violations and offers a few theories for unexploited and unexplored claims. Finally, this Article concludes with an instrumentalist view of the search for remedies. The current mismatch between privacy wrongs and remedies creates a destabilizing force that will ultimately push in favor of enhanced legal rights for data privacy.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2003-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.434585","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

The American legal system has generally rejected legal rights for data privacy and relies instead on market self-regulation and the litigation process to establish norms of appropriate behavior in society. Information privacy is protected only through an amalgam of narrowly targeted rules. The aggregation of these specific rights leaves many significant gaps and fewer clear remedies for violations of fair information practices. With an absence of well-established legal rights, privacy wrongs are currently in search of remedies. The American public is beginning to demand that data privacy violators be held accountable. In a recent survey, Internet users overwhelmingly called for sanctions ranging from jail time to blacklisting of organizations that failed to respect privacy policies. Public enforcement actions and private law suits in the United States are just emerging as an important force in the creation of adequate protection for citizens' personal information in American society. This Article first describes privacy rights and wrongs that frame the search for remedies in the United States. In particular, this section focuses on two different types of harm created by the misuse of personal information and the desire to find protective rights: personal or private wrongs and public or societal wrongs. Next this Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General have become important enforcers against personal wrongs, but their efforts fall short of accomplishing systematic change and fail to provide individual victims with any real remedy. The third part of this Article examines private claims for privacy wrongs. This section explores some tortured efforts to obtain redress for privacy violations and offers a few theories for unexploited and unexplored claims. Finally, this Article concludes with an instrumentalist view of the search for remedies. The current mismatch between privacy wrongs and remedies creates a destabilizing force that will ultimately push in favor of enhanced legal rights for data privacy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
寻求补救的隐私错误
美国法律体系普遍拒绝数据隐私的合法权利,而是依靠市场自我调节和诉讼程序来建立社会上适当行为的规范。信息隐私只能通过一系列针对性较窄的规则加以保护。这些具体权利集中在一起,留下了许多重大空白,对违反公平信息做法的明确补救措施也较少。由于缺乏完善的法律权利,隐私侵权目前正在寻求补救措施。美国公众开始要求数据隐私侵犯者承担责任。在最近的一项调查中,绝大多数互联网用户要求对不尊重隐私政策的组织进行制裁,从监禁到黑名单。美国的公共执法行动和私人诉讼刚刚成为美国社会为公民个人信息提供充分保护的重要力量。本文首先描述了隐私权的权利和错误,这些权利和错误构成了美国寻求补救的框架。本节特别侧重于滥用个人信息和寻求保护权利的愿望所造成的两种不同类型的伤害:个人或私人错误和公共或社会错误。其次,联邦贸易委员会和州检察长已成为打击个人不法行为的重要执行者,但他们的努力未能实现系统性变革,也未能为个人受害者提供任何真正的补救措施。本文的第三部分考察了隐私权侵权的私人请求权。本节探讨了一些因侵犯隐私而获得赔偿的痛苦努力,并为未开发和未探索的索赔提供了一些理论。最后,本文以寻求救济的工具主义观点作为结论。目前隐私错误和补救措施之间的不匹配造成了一种不稳定的力量,最终将推动加强数据隐私的法律权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Hastings College of the Law was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California, and today is one of the top-rated law schools in the United States. Its alumni span the globe and are among the most respected lawyers, judges and business leaders today. Hastings was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California and is one of the most exciting and vibrant legal education centers in the nation. Our faculty are nationally renowned as both teachers and scholars.
期刊最新文献
Corporations and the Original Meaning of 'Citizens' in Article III Law of the State and Politics Beyond the Double Veto: Housing Plans as Preemptive Intergovernmental Compacts Unmasking the Right of Publicity History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1