We build an endogenous growth model with consumer-generated data as a new key factor for knowledge accumulation. Consumers balance between providing data for profit and potential privacy infringement. Intermediate good producers use data to innovate and contribute to the final good production, which fuels economic growth. Data are dynamically nonrival with flexible ownership while their production is endogenous and policy-dependent. Although a decentralized economy can grow at the same rate (but are at different levels) as the social optimum on the Balanced Growth Path, the R&D sector underemploys labor and overuses data—an inefficiency mitigated by subsidizing innovators instead of direct data regulation. As a data economy emerges and matures, consumers’ data provision endogenously declines after a transitional acceleration, allaying long-run privacy concerns but portending initial growth traps that call for interventions. This paper was accepted by Kay Giesecke, finance.
{"title":"Knowledge Accumulation, Privacy, and Growth in a Data Economy","authors":"L. Cong, Danxia Xie, Longtian Zhang","doi":"10.1287/mnsc.2021.3986","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.3986","url":null,"abstract":"We build an endogenous growth model with consumer-generated data as a new key factor for knowledge accumulation. Consumers balance between providing data for profit and potential privacy infringement. Intermediate good producers use data to innovate and contribute to the final good production, which fuels economic growth. Data are dynamically nonrival with flexible ownership while their production is endogenous and policy-dependent. Although a decentralized economy can grow at the same rate (but are at different levels) as the social optimum on the Balanced Growth Path, the R&D sector underemploys labor and overuses data—an inefficiency mitigated by subsidizing innovators instead of direct data regulation. As a data economy emerges and matures, consumers’ data provision endogenously declines after a transitional acceleration, allaying long-run privacy concerns but portending initial growth traps that call for interventions. This paper was accepted by Kay Giesecke, finance.","PeriodicalId":141198,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Regulation of Information & Privacy Issues Involving Consumers (Sub-Topic)","volume":"177 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124388467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Direct to consumer (DTC) genetic testing has recently become a popular trend in the United States. There are countless private actors that could have an interest in the genetic data that has been collected and interpreted by DTC genetic testing companies, such as 23andMe. For instance, what would happen if a private entity were to acquire this genetic information through mergers and acquisitions, contracts of adhesion, or a data breach? This expansive violation of privacy will not only directly affect those who have voluntarily provided online genetic testing sites with their genetic information, but blood relatives who inherently share similar DNA will be implicitly affected as well. Modern genomics now allows researchers to “fill in the blanks” of a family tree based on one family member’s genetic sequence. This article seeks to focus on civil remedies and regulatory protections regarding familial third parties' privacy implications in the event of the access, sharing, or disclosure of the contributing sample owner's genetic information. With the last landmark piece of federal legislation pertaining to genetic privacy being passed nearly 12 years ago, these relatives of the contributing sample owner may only be left with ineffective civil remedies for the nonconsensual use, obtention, and/or public disclosure of an appreciable amount of their genetic information. This Article tracks the evolution of DTC genetic testing and the vulnerability of the private and sensitive health information that has been acquired and analyzed for millions of consumers. It also highlights the feasibility and inadequacies of civil remedies for third party relatives in the event that their genetic information is implicitly shared as a result of the disclosure of the contributing owner's genetic sample.
{"title":"Family Ties: The Familial Privacy Implications of Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing","authors":"Charles Matranga","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3533283","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3533283","url":null,"abstract":"Direct to consumer (DTC) genetic testing has recently become a popular trend in the United States. There are countless private actors that could have an interest in the genetic data that has been collected and interpreted by DTC genetic testing companies, such as 23andMe. For instance, what would happen if a private entity were to acquire this genetic information through mergers and acquisitions, contracts of adhesion, or a data breach? This expansive violation of privacy will not only directly affect those who have voluntarily provided online genetic testing sites with their genetic information, but blood relatives who inherently share similar DNA will be implicitly affected as well. \u0000 \u0000Modern genomics now allows researchers to “fill in the blanks” of a family tree based on one family member’s genetic sequence. This article seeks to focus on civil remedies and regulatory protections regarding familial third parties' privacy implications in the event of the access, sharing, or disclosure of the contributing sample owner's genetic information. \u0000 \u0000With the last landmark piece of federal legislation pertaining to genetic privacy being passed nearly 12 years ago, these relatives of the contributing sample owner may only be left with ineffective civil remedies for the nonconsensual use, obtention, and/or public disclosure of an appreciable amount of their genetic information. This Article tracks the evolution of DTC genetic testing and the vulnerability of the private and sensitive health information that has been acquired and analyzed for millions of consumers. It also highlights the feasibility and inadequacies of civil remedies for third party relatives in the event that their genetic information is implicitly shared as a result of the disclosure of the contributing owner's genetic sample.","PeriodicalId":141198,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Regulation of Information & Privacy Issues Involving Consumers (Sub-Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114396194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper contends that in the “war” to protect the privacy of individuals’ personal information online, the battle to limit the collection of such information has been lost. Existing personal information protection regimes, with their emphasis on notice and consent, have proven inadequate, especially in light of the advent of “big data analytics” and revelations of large-scale privacy violations by governments and corporations. I argue, however, that the war can still be won on another front — that of limiting the use of personal information. In developing this theme, I explore the notion of “network privacy,” which posits that information shared online within a given social circle is intended to stay within that social circle, and is not to be shared beyond its boundaries without permission. Currently there is no legal protection in Canada against the invasion of network privacy (though in several recent decisions, the courts have shown a more nuanced understanding of privacy in online information). One potential source of such protection might be the adoption of the “Oxford principles” formulated in 2013, which propose a new model for regulating the processing of information, one that is focused on the use of personal information rather than on its collection. In my view, though, those principles, as well as other proposals, would not provide sufficient protection. Instead, I outline an approach that is broadly similar to the prohibition against the use of information relating to protected grounds under Canadian human rights legislation. Under this approach, no action could be taken against an individual — including in the employment context — based on his or her online information, except where that information reveals criminal, illegal or unethical conduct, or causes significant harm to others.
{"title":"Losing the Battle But Winning the War: Why Online Information Should Be a Prohibited Ground","authors":"A. Levin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2651362","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2651362","url":null,"abstract":"This paper contends that in the “war” to protect the privacy of individuals’ personal information online, the battle to limit the collection of such information has been lost. Existing personal information protection regimes, with their emphasis on notice and consent, have proven inadequate, especially in light of the advent of “big data analytics” and revelations of large-scale privacy violations by governments and corporations. I argue, however, that the war can still be won on another front — that of limiting the use of personal information. In developing this theme, I explore the notion of “network privacy,” which posits that information shared online within a given social circle is intended to stay within that social circle, and is not to be shared beyond its boundaries without permission. Currently there is no legal protection in Canada against the invasion of network privacy (though in several recent decisions, the courts have shown a more nuanced understanding of privacy in online information). One potential source of such protection might be the adoption of the “Oxford principles” formulated in 2013, which propose a new model for regulating the processing of information, one that is focused on the use of personal information rather than on its collection. In my view, though, those principles, as well as other proposals, would not provide sufficient protection. Instead, I outline an approach that is broadly similar to the prohibition against the use of information relating to protected grounds under Canadian human rights legislation. Under this approach, no action could be taken against an individual — including in the employment context — based on his or her online information, except where that information reveals criminal, illegal or unethical conduct, or causes significant harm to others.","PeriodicalId":141198,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Regulation of Information & Privacy Issues Involving Consumers (Sub-Topic)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131444218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This powerpoint presentation is to be delivered at the Federal Judicial Academy, Islamabad. It highlights the key points of Consumer Protection Laws in Pakistan.
本简报将在伊斯兰堡联邦司法学院发表。它突出了巴基斯坦消费者保护法的要点。
{"title":"Consumer Protection Law in Pakistan","authors":"Justice Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1974307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1974307","url":null,"abstract":"This powerpoint presentation is to be delivered at the Federal Judicial Academy, Islamabad. It highlights the key points of Consumer Protection Laws in Pakistan.","PeriodicalId":141198,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Regulation of Information & Privacy Issues Involving Consumers (Sub-Topic)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122146905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While it remains impossible to predict with precision the impact a new privacy regulatory regime will have the Internet economy and digital consumers, regulation will have consequences; of that much we can be certain. As the FTC and other policy makers move forward with proposals to expand regulation in this regard, it is vital that the surreal "something-for-nothing" quality of current privacy debate cease. Those who criticize data collection or online advertising and call for expanded regulation should be required to provide a strict cost-benefit analysis of the restrictions they would impose upon America’s vibrant digital marketplace.In particular, it should be clear that the debate over Do Not Track and online advertising regulation is fundamentally tied up with the future of online content, culture, and services. Thus, regulatory advocates must explain how the content and services supported currently by advertising and marketing will be sustained if current online data collection and ad targeting techniques are restricted.The possibility of regulation also retarding vigorous marketplace competition - especially new innovations and entry - is also very real. Consequently, the Commission bears the heavy burden of explaining how such results would be consistent with its long-standing mission to protect consumer welfare and promote competition. Importantly, the "harm" that critics claim online advertising or data collection efforts gives rise to must be shown to be concrete, not merely conjectural. Too much is at stake to allow otherwise.Finally, as it pertains to solutions for those who remain sensitive about their privacy online, education and empowerment should trump regulation. Regulation would potentially destroy innovation in this space by substituting a government-approved, "one-size-fits-all" standard for the "let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom" approach, which offers diverse tools for a diverse citizenry. Consumers can and will adapt to changing privacy norms and expectations, but the Commission should not seek to plan that evolutionary process from above.
{"title":"Public Interest Comment on Federal Trade Commission Report, Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change","authors":"Adam Thierer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1763398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1763398","url":null,"abstract":"While it remains impossible to predict with precision the impact a new privacy regulatory regime will have the Internet economy and digital consumers, regulation will have consequences; of that much we can be certain. As the FTC and other policy makers move forward with proposals to expand regulation in this regard, it is vital that the surreal \"something-for-nothing\" quality of current privacy debate cease. Those who criticize data collection or online advertising and call for expanded regulation should be required to provide a strict cost-benefit analysis of the restrictions they would impose upon America’s vibrant digital marketplace.In particular, it should be clear that the debate over Do Not Track and online advertising regulation is fundamentally tied up with the future of online content, culture, and services. Thus, regulatory advocates must explain how the content and services supported currently by advertising and marketing will be sustained if current online data collection and ad targeting techniques are restricted.The possibility of regulation also retarding vigorous marketplace competition - especially new innovations and entry - is also very real. Consequently, the Commission bears the heavy burden of explaining how such results would be consistent with its long-standing mission to protect consumer welfare and promote competition. Importantly, the \"harm\" that critics claim online advertising or data collection efforts gives rise to must be shown to be concrete, not merely conjectural. Too much is at stake to allow otherwise.Finally, as it pertains to solutions for those who remain sensitive about their privacy online, education and empowerment should trump regulation. Regulation would potentially destroy innovation in this space by substituting a government-approved, \"one-size-fits-all\" standard for the \"let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom\" approach, which offers diverse tools for a diverse citizenry. Consumers can and will adapt to changing privacy norms and expectations, but the Commission should not seek to plan that evolutionary process from above.","PeriodicalId":141198,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Regulation of Information & Privacy Issues Involving Consumers (Sub-Topic)","volume":"198 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128680203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：