Search

How to frame privacy penalties to protect our personal information is an important question as demands for legislation and proposals proliferate. The predominant assumption in calls for a comprehensive consumer privacy regime is that regulation and penalties arm the consumer David against Goliath businesses. Missing in the focus on powerful companies is attention to the potential harms of expanding privacy penalties for small-fry individuals and entities, especially from disfavored or marginalized groups. This Article is the first to illuminate the regressive risks of privacy penalties, showing how broad privacy penalties can become tools for harassment of small businesses and individuals with limited resources to defend. Drawing on original research collecting and coding 571 privacy penalty decisions from 20 nations under the world's toughest privacy rights and penalties regime, the European Union's General Data Privacy Regulation ("GDPR"), this Article offers cautionary lessons. Illuminating a shadow jurisprudence of small targets, the Article shows how overly broad, amorphously worded privacy penalty provisions can be used to target disfavored groups and create weapons for the disgruntled, such as punishing people who record the police or in disputes between neighbors. The Article offers three major principles to protect against targeting harms. First, the Article warns against vague broad language in framing penalty-backed obligations to curb discretion to harass and target disfavored groups. Second, the Article argues for a regulatory agency model with an explicit advisory role rather than a predominantly quasiprosecutorial role. Third, the Article proposes safe harbors for individuals and small businesses and a complementary understanding that even seemingly minor penalties can carry major collateral consequences for the vulnerable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What really happened? For centuries, courts have been magisterially blind, cloistered far away from the contested events that they adjudicate, relying primarily on testimony to get the story--or competing stories. Whether oral or written, this testimony is profoundly human, with all the passions, partisanship and imperfections of human perception. Now a revolution is coming. Across the nation, police departments are deploying body cameras. Analyzing body camera policies from police departments across the nation, the article reveals an unfolding future where much of the main staple events of criminal procedure law will be recorded. Much of the current focus is on how body cameras will impact policing and public opinion. Yet there is another important audience for body camera footage--the courts that forge constitutional criminal procedure, the primary conduct rules for police. This article explores what the coming power to replay a wider array of police enforcement actions than ever before means for judicial review and criminal procedure law. The body camera revolution means an evidentiary revolution for courts, transforming the traditional reliance on reports and testimony and filling in gaps in a domain where defendants are often silent. The article proposes rules of judicial review to cultivate regular use of the audiovisual record in criminal procedure cases and discourage gaps and omissions due to selective recording. The article also offers rules of restraint against the seductive power of video to seem to depict the unmediated truth. Camera perspective can subtly shape judgments. Personal worldviews influence image interpretation. And there is often a difference between the legally relevant truth and the depiction captured on video. Care must be taken therefore to apply the proper perceptual yardsticks and reserve interpretive questions for the appropriate fact-finders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the changes in sexual and social norms which lead to a public health challenge for law and policy. It provides informational interventions beyond the costly regulatory regimes of criminal and tort law and the sexually transmitted disease (STD) observing states. It proposes various ways for verifying STD status and preventative privacy-piercing approach can reduce the spreading of STD.