Today, a growing chorus of experts, journalists, and policymakers calls for the creation of property rights in personal data. In theory, property rights emerge when the gains from propertization outweigh the costs of securing those rights. This formula, originally identified by Harold Demsetz, explains the development of property rights in land, intellectual property, and many other assets. Applying Demsetz’s theory, this Article asks whether the time has come to extend property rights in personal data. The answer is yes. The first half of Demsetz’s formula estimates the gains from extending property rights. Under the contract-law-based status quo, the market for personal data suffers from high information and enforcement costs along with inadequate incentives to supply and safeguard data. Propertization promises to mitigate — though not completely resolve — those challenges. The second half of Demsetz’s formula trains on the cost of securing property rights. For property rights to be secure in practice — not just desirable in theory — institutional investments are necessary. The conventional wisdom holds that only state-run institutions, such as courts and regulators, can protect property. But rather than rely on regulators and courts, policymakers should deputize private adjuncts to define and enforce property rights. This approach enlists the most efficient managers of information — data processing firms — in securing property. Compared with a propertization regime that relies on state-run institutions, mobilizing private adjuncts promises to substantially lower the cost of securing property rights. Because the gains from propertization are larger, and the costs smaller, than previously thought, both prongs of Demsetz’s formula favor the creation of property rights in personal data.
{"title":"Personal Data as Property","authors":"Steve Hazel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3669268","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3669268","url":null,"abstract":"Today, a growing chorus of experts, journalists, and policymakers calls for the creation of property rights in personal data. In theory, property rights emerge when the gains from propertization outweigh the costs of securing those rights. This formula, originally identified by Harold Demsetz, explains the development of property rights in land, intellectual property, and many other assets. \u0000 \u0000Applying Demsetz’s theory, this Article asks whether the time has come to extend property rights in personal data. The answer is yes. \u0000 \u0000The first half of Demsetz’s formula estimates the gains from extending property rights. Under the contract-law-based status quo, the market for personal data suffers from high information and enforcement costs along with inadequate incentives to supply and safeguard data. Propertization promises to mitigate — though not completely resolve — those challenges. \u0000 \u0000The second half of Demsetz’s formula trains on the cost of securing property rights. For property rights to be secure in practice — not just desirable in theory — institutional investments are necessary. The conventional wisdom holds that only state-run institutions, such as courts and regulators, can protect property. But rather than rely on regulators and courts, policymakers should deputize private adjuncts to define and enforce property rights. This approach enlists the most efficient managers of information — data processing firms — in securing property. Compared with a propertization regime that relies on state-run institutions, mobilizing private adjuncts promises to substantially lower the cost of securing property rights. \u0000 \u0000Because the gains from propertization are larger, and the costs smaller, than previously thought, both prongs of Demsetz’s formula favor the creation of property rights in personal data.","PeriodicalId":308770,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Common Law Privacy Torts in Consumer Transactions (Sub-Topic)","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134273722","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}
G. Greenleaf, David Lindsay, B. Arnold, R. Clarke, K. Lane, Nigel Waters, Elizabeth Coombs
This is the final submission to the Australian Government by the Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) on the final report of the Australian Consumer & Competition Commission (ACCC) Report on regulation of digital platforms.APF welcomes the contribution made by the ACCC to improving the understanding of how the protection of privacy is central to addressing anti-competitive concerns and consumer protection in the data economy. APF's primary focus in this submission is on the consumer privacy aspects of the Inquiry, but with an eye to the issues of market power, and the trust that is fundamental for public administration in online environments. The APF strongly supports the ACCC's analysis and recommendations, across the board. ACCC’s analysis is consistent with a wide range of Australian and international official and private reports over the past three years, demonstrating that there is international recognition of a substantive problem that must be addressed. In particular, APF urges the Government’s adoption of the recommendations in Chapter 7 to achieve vital and substantial upgrades in Australia’s privacy protection, in order to address the major inroads into privacy because of the enormous growth in data surveillance by the private sector since 2000, the pressing need for a more powerful and much more effective Privacy Commissioner, and to achieve the privacy right of action previously recommended.For reasons detailed in this Submission (and summarised at its end), APF expresses its strong support for the adoption by the Australian Government of all of the following Recommendations:16: Strengthen protections in the Privacy Act (a) Update ‘personal information’ definition (b) Strengthen notification requirements (c) Strengthen consent requirements and pro-consumer defaults (d) Enable the erasure of personal information (e) Introduce direct rights of action for individuals (f) Higher penalties for breach of the Privacy Act 17: Broader reform of Australian privacy law, having regard to:1. Objectives2. Scope3. Higher standard of protections4. Inferred information5. De-identified information6. Overseas data flows7. Third-party certification18: OAIC privacy code for digital platforms, including but not limited to:1. Information requirements2. Consent requirements3. Opt-out controls4. Children’s data5. Information security6. Retention period7. Complaints-handling19: Statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy20: Prohibition against unfair contract terms 21: Prohibition against certain unfair trading practices
{"title":"Regulation of Digital Platforms as Part of Economy-Wide Reforms to Australia's Failed Privacy Laws (Australian Privacy Foundation Submission to the Australian Government on Implementation of the ACCC's Digital Platforms Inquiry—Final Report)","authors":"G. Greenleaf, David Lindsay, B. Arnold, R. Clarke, K. Lane, Nigel Waters, Elizabeth Coombs","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3443337","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3443337","url":null,"abstract":"This is the final submission to the Australian Government by the Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) on the final report of the Australian Consumer & Competition Commission (ACCC) Report on regulation of digital platforms.APF welcomes the contribution made by the ACCC to improving the understanding of how the protection of privacy is central to addressing anti-competitive concerns and consumer protection in the data economy. APF's primary focus in this submission is on the consumer privacy aspects of the Inquiry, but with an eye to the issues of market power, and the trust that is fundamental for public administration in online environments. The APF strongly supports the ACCC's analysis and recommendations, across the board. ACCC’s analysis is consistent with a wide range of Australian and international official and private reports over the past three years, demonstrating that there is international recognition of a substantive problem that must be addressed. In particular, APF urges the Government’s adoption of the recommendations in Chapter 7 to achieve vital and substantial upgrades in Australia’s privacy protection, in order to address the major inroads into privacy because of the enormous growth in data surveillance by the private sector since 2000, the pressing need for a more powerful and much more effective Privacy Commissioner, and to achieve the privacy right of action previously recommended.For reasons detailed in this Submission (and summarised at its end), APF expresses its strong support for the adoption by the Australian Government of all of the following Recommendations:16: Strengthen protections in the Privacy Act (a) Update ‘personal information’ definition (b) Strengthen notification requirements (c) Strengthen consent requirements and pro-consumer defaults (d) Enable the erasure of personal information (e) Introduce direct rights of action for individuals (f) Higher penalties for breach of the Privacy Act 17: Broader reform of Australian privacy law, having regard to:1. Objectives2. Scope3. Higher standard of protections4. Inferred information5. De-identified information6. Overseas data flows7. Third-party certification18: OAIC privacy code for digital platforms, including but not limited to:1. Information requirements2. Consent requirements3. Opt-out controls4. Children’s data5. Information security6. Retention period7. Complaints-handling19: Statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy20: Prohibition against unfair contract terms 21: Prohibition against certain unfair trading practices","PeriodicalId":308770,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Common Law Privacy Torts in Consumer Transactions (Sub-Topic)","volume":"45 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132767120","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}
In the last decade, India has witnessed one of the most important events in human history- the Web Revolution. The rapidly increased use of the web, the Internet, Intranet and Extranet, e-business or e-commerce and mobile commerce has changed the manner in which business is done in almost all the organizations. Technological innovation is blurring the distinction among traditional forms of financial intermediaries such as commercial banks, investment banks and specialized finance companies. The advent of e-Business accompanied with technological innovations and globalization is constantly propelling the businesses organization to redefine their business operations in terms of value chain re-engineering and restructuring business models. Likely, the financial sector is metamorphosing under the impact of competitive, regulatory and technological forces. Financial institutions especially the banking sector is currently in a transition phase. Banks are the engines that drive the operations in the financial sector, which is vital for the economy of any country. The Banking industry is one of the oldest in the world. The Indian Banking Industry has not remained totally passive spectator of Information Technology revolution that has taken place around the world. Banking industry in India has undergone radical changes under the umbrella term ‘web Revolution’. In the modern computer world, all the activities of the banking transactions are made through computers and electronic medium. The banks have put themselves in the World Wide Web to take advantage of the internet’s power and reach, to cope with the accelerating pace of change of business environment. Electronic Banking is popularly known as ‘PC banking’, ‘online banking’, ‘Internet banking’, ‘Telephone-banking’ or ‘mobile banking’. E-banking may be understood as term that covers all these ways of banking business electronically. In this research paper, it is highlighted that on one hand online banking has made the lives of people very easy, however, on the other hand, online banking is not free from threats and risks. In this research paper the threats to the consumers in online banking has been highlighted.
{"title":"Threats to the Rights of Consumers in E-Banking in India: An Overview","authors":"Dr. Gagandeep Kaur","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2983199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2983199","url":null,"abstract":"In the last decade, India has witnessed one of the most important events in human history- the Web Revolution. The rapidly increased use of the web, the Internet, Intranet and Extranet, e-business or e-commerce and mobile commerce has changed the manner in which business is done in almost all the organizations. Technological innovation is blurring the distinction among traditional forms of financial intermediaries such as commercial banks, investment banks and specialized finance companies. The advent of e-Business accompanied with technological innovations and globalization is constantly propelling the businesses organization to redefine their business operations in terms of value chain re-engineering and restructuring business models. Likely, the financial sector is metamorphosing under the impact of competitive, regulatory and technological forces. Financial institutions especially the banking sector is currently in a transition phase. Banks are the engines that drive the operations in the financial sector, which is vital for the economy of any country. The Banking industry is one of the oldest in the world. The Indian Banking Industry has not remained totally passive spectator of Information Technology revolution that has taken place around the world. Banking industry in India has undergone radical changes under the umbrella term ‘web Revolution’. In the modern computer world, all the activities of the banking transactions are made through computers and electronic medium. The banks have put themselves in the World Wide Web to take advantage of the internet’s power and reach, to cope with the accelerating pace of change of business environment. Electronic Banking is popularly known as ‘PC banking’, ‘online banking’, ‘Internet banking’, ‘Telephone-banking’ or ‘mobile banking’. E-banking may be understood as term that covers all these ways of banking business electronically. In this research paper, it is highlighted that on one hand online banking has made the lives of people very easy, however, on the other hand, online banking is not free from threats and risks. In this research paper the threats to the consumers in online banking has been highlighted.","PeriodicalId":308770,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Common Law Privacy Torts in Consumer Transactions (Sub-Topic)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131137154","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 article explores the spectacular prevalence, and failure, of the single most common technique for protecting personal autonomy in modern society: mandated disclosure. The article has four sections:(1) A comprehensive summary of the recurring use of mandated disclosures, in many forms and circumstances, in the areas of consumer and borrower protection, patient informed consent, contract formation, and constitutional rights;(2) A survey of the empirical literature documenting the failure of the mandated disclosure regime in informing people and in improving their decisions;(3) An account of the multitude of reasons mandated disclosures fail, focusing on the political dynamics underlying the enactments of these mandates, the incentives of disclosers to carry them out, and, most importantly, on the ability of disclosees to use them;(4) An argument that mandated disclosure not only fails to achieve its stated goal but also leads to unintended consequences that often harm the very people it intends to serve.
{"title":"The Failure of Mandated Disclosure","authors":"O. Ben‐Shahar, C. Schneider","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1567284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1567284","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the spectacular prevalence, and failure, of the single most common technique for protecting personal autonomy in modern society: mandated disclosure. The article has four sections:(1) A comprehensive summary of the recurring use of mandated disclosures, in many forms and circumstances, in the areas of consumer and borrower protection, patient informed consent, contract formation, and constitutional rights;(2) A survey of the empirical literature documenting the failure of the mandated disclosure regime in informing people and in improving their decisions;(3) An account of the multitude of reasons mandated disclosures fail, focusing on the political dynamics underlying the enactments of these mandates, the incentives of disclosers to carry them out, and, most importantly, on the ability of disclosees to use them;(4) An argument that mandated disclosure not only fails to achieve its stated goal but also leads to unintended consequences that often harm the very people it intends to serve.","PeriodicalId":308770,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Common Law Privacy Torts in Consumer Transactions (Sub-Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129609658","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：