Important Research About Privacy Issues Sought by The Future of Privacy Forum

The Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) is seeking submissions of papers focused on privacy issues for their upcoming third edition of “Privacy Papers for Policy Makers.” FPF is compiling important research and analytical work about current and emerging privacy issues in order to help inform and stimulate thinking among policy makers and policy thought-leaders in the U.S. and around the world.
 
The work of several TAP scholars has been included in the first two editions of “Privacy Papers for Policy Makers.” Here are some highlights:
 
2011 “Privacy Papers for Policy Makers”

• M. Ryan Calo, in “Against Notice Skepticism,” undermines the case for the skepticism around requiring notice of privacy practices by exposing two erroneous assumptions commonly made: 1) notice is monolithic, and 2) notice must consist of language or its symbolic equivalent.
• Paul M. Schwartz and Daniel J. Solove explore the central role of PII and the grounds for its current uneasy status, and contend that information privacy law needs a concept of personally identifiable information (PII) in “The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information.”

Notable Mentions included:

• Chris Hoofnagle, Mika Ayenson, Deitrich James Wambach, Ashkan Soltani and Nathan Good - “Flash Cookies and Privacy II: Now with HTML5 and ETag Respawning ”
• Ira S. Rubinstein - “Regulating Privacy by Design”

 
2010 “Privacy Papers for Policy Makers”

• Deirdre K. Mulligan and Kenneth A. Bamberger’s “Privacy on the Books and on the Ground” presents findings from the first study of corporate privacy management in fifteen years.
• Alessandro Acquisti had two papers included in this journal. “What is Privacy Worth?,” with Leslie John and George Loewenstein, suggest that the value of privacy, while not entirely arbitrary, is highly malleable and sensitive to non-normative factors. And “Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox,” with Laura Brandimarte and George Loewenstein, highlight how technologies that make individuals feel more in control over the release of personal information may have the unintended consequence of eliciting greater disclosure of sensitive information.
• Lorrie Faith Cranor, Patrick Gage Kelley, Lucian Cesca, and Joanna Bresee shares the process and development of a standardized, tabular “nutrition label” for online privacy policies in “Standardizing Privacy Notices: An Online Study of the Nutrition Label Approach.”
• Chris Hoofnagle, Joseph Turow, Jennifer King, and Su Li’s “How Different are Young Adults from Older Adults When it Comes to Information Privacy Attitudes and Policies?” concludes that young adult Americans hunger for increased privacy, even while they participate in an online reality that is optimized to increase revelation of personal data.  
• Ira Rubinstein explores co-regulatory approaches to privacy in which government plays a role in setting requirements for industry guidelines and imposing sanctions for non-compliance in “Privacy and Regulatory Innovation: Moving Beyond Voluntary Codes.”

 
Notable Mentions included:

• Danah Boyd – “Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity”
• M. Ryan Calo – “The Boundaries of Privacy Harm”
• Paul M. Schwartz – “Preemption and Privacy”
• Daniel Solove and Chris Hoofnagle – “A Model Regime of Privacy Protection”
• Joseph  Turow and Chris Hoofnagle – “Americans Reject Tailored Advertising and Three Activities that Enable It”

 
 
Seeking Submissions for the 2012 “Privacy Papers for Policy Makers”
FPF is inviting privacy scholars and authors with an interest in privacy issues to submit papers to be considered for the 2012 edition of “Privacy Papers for Policy Makers.” For more information and to submit papers for consideration, review the FPF’s announcement on their site: Call for Papers: Policy Papers for Policy Makers 2012.
 
The Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) is a Washington, DC based think tank that seeks to advance responsible data practices. The forum is led by Internet privacy experts Jules Polonetsky and Christopher Wolf, and includes an advisory board comprised of leading figures from industry, academia, law and advocacy groups.