In an op-ed article for the Los Angeles Times, Woodrow Hartzog, Professor of Law and Computer Science at Northeastern University, shares his insights into Google and Apple’s contact tracing project, and he discusses the “three concerns to keep in mind about relying on technology to mitigate the COVID-19 crisis.”
Privacy expert Paul Schwartz, UC Berkeley, examines two proposed federal bills developed for the regulation of a COVID-19-tracking app in order to protect the privacy of health information.
UC Berkeley Professor Paul Schwartz examines the debates around the globe about the use and development of COVID-19 tracking apps. Given the great concern about the impact of these apps on privacy and civil liberties, he provides a compilation of best practices from European and U.S. data privacy protection organizations.
Professor Mary Gray, Senior Researcher at Microsoft Research, expresses reservations about the effectiveness and equity of a cell phone app aimed to put COVID-19 contact tracing in individuals’ hands.
Take a look at the top viewed blog posts from this past year that have been written by TAP scholars.
In this opinion piece written for The New York Times, University of Pennsylvania Legal Studies and Business Ethics professor Kevin Werbach explains why the wireless open access proposal from the Trump re-election campaign is worth considering.
How did the U.S. Supreme Court arrive at its Carpenter decision? University of Chicago Law School professor Lior Strahilevitz offers his analysis of the Justices’ opinions.
Colorado law professor Margot Kaminski discusses the “paradigm-shifting implications” for Fourth Amendment and privacy law that come out of Chief Justice Robert’s opinion in the Carpenter decision.
“Carpenter is incorrect,” says New York University law professor Richard Epstein. Professor Epstein explains why invoking the third-party doctrine was the wrong analysis for this case that uses cell-site location information to convict a thief.
George Washington University privacy law professor Daniel Solove discusses the Carpenter decision, and he explains why he believes the ruling falls short of its potential to address the shortcomings of the third-party doctrine in the digital age.