E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Over at the Atlantic, Jonathan Zittrain and I have an essay explaining how to use the concept of information fiduciaries to regulate digital privacy. The idea is that, instead of simply declaring certain companies to be information fiduciaries, the federal government should offer them incentives to accept the designation and the obligations of trustworthiness and fair dealing that come with it:
There is an opportunity for a new, grand bargain organized around the
idea of fiduciary responsibility. Companies could take on the
responsibilities of information fiduciaries: They would agree to a set
of fair information practices, including security and privacy
guarantees, and disclosure of breaches. They would promise not to
leverage personal data to unfairly discriminate against or abuse the
trust of end users. And they would not sell or distribute consumer
information except to those who agreed to similar rules. In return, the
federal government would preempt a wide range of state and local
laws.
Compliance with
state legislation and common law—and the threat of class-action suits
and actions by state attorneys general—have become sufficiently
burdensome that some companies, such as Microsoft, already have
indicated that they are open to comprehensive federal privacy
legislation that would preempt conflicting state regulation. Congress
could respond with a “Digital Millennium Privacy Act” that offers a
parallel trade-off to that of the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act]: accept the federal government’s
rules of fair dealing and gain a safe harbor from uncertain legal
liability, or stand pat with the status quo.
The DMPA would
provide a predictable level of federal immunity for those companies
willing to subscribe to the duties of an information fiduciary and
accept a corresponding process to disclose and redress privacy and
security violations. As with the DMCA, those companies unwilling to take
the leap would be left no worse off than they are today—subject to the
tender mercies of state and local governments. But those who accept the
deal would gain the consistency and calculability of a single set of
nationwide rules. Even without the public giving up on any hard-fought
privacy rights recognized by a single state, a company could find that
becoming an information fiduciary could be far less burdensome than
having to respond to multiple and conflicting state and local
obligations.
The idea also applies to algorithmic discrimination and manipulation. Companies that employ algorithms in areas like finance, marketing, and employment decision making would be offered a safe harbor from state regulation if they accepted the obligations of information fiduciaries.