Biometrics and the Challenge of Being Anonymous

The use of fingerprints and retina scans has been a feature in spy and crime movies for a long time, but today is a very real part of life.  Biometrics is the phenomenon of recognizing individuals by their physical or behavioral traits using biometric technology.  Examples of biometric data are fingerprints, palm prints, retina scans, DNA matching, typing rhythm, gait, signatures, and facial recognition.  Biometrics measures distinct and generally unalterable characteristics of individuals.  With the growth of technology in the past several decades, biometric technology is now faster, more accurate, and more affordable than it has ever been.

The current uses for biometric data include: control of physical access to spaces, accounts, vehicles, and medical records; surveillance; identification; fraud prevention; distribution of benefits; time and attendance tracking for places of employment and/or schools; and air travel and border control.  Because the use of biometric data has increased in recent years, the conversation about its implication on privacy has become heated.

Privacy Concerns Surrounding Facial Recognition Technology

There are several privacy concerns associated with the growing use and implementation of biometrics. Professor Dryer outlines some of the major concerns in his youtube lecture.  They include: length of storage, access rights, usage of information, focus of usage, data errors, use of information to manipulate consumer behavior, potential discrimination, and the growth of “Big Brother”.  One of the main concerns is around the use of facial recognition technology.  According to the GAO Facial Recognition Technology Report, facial recognition differs from the other biometric technologies because it does not require the individual to directly interact with the technology.  This paired with the technology’s abilities has privacy advocates fired up.

Facial recognition technology uses facial feature measurements to create a faceprint in order to verify the identity of a known person or to identify an unknown person.  For more information about how the technology works watch this video that was provided through our readings.  The use of facial recognition technology has received a lot of attention with the dawn of social networking apps like NameTag, promotional apps like Facedeals, as well as  the patented Microsoft billboard that scans your face and then custom displays ads targeted for the identified individual. Facebook has received attention from privacy advocates because of their facial recognition algorithm that allows it to identify users in pictures and suggest people to tag.  Facebook has collected one of the biggest biometric databases simply by having individuals tag themselves and friends in pictures.  Not only has this allowed for a large data base, but the technology Facebook is using is highly accurate.  According to a Washington Post article, Google’s facial recognition algorithm FaceNet has 99.63% accuracy, Facebook’s algorithm DeepFace has 97.25% accuracy, and the FBI has 85% accuracy.  Because of concerns about Facebook’s use of facial recognition technology without consent and the privacy implications on individuals, they have become the defendant in a large lawsuit Licata v. Facebook.

Potential Benefits of Biometrics

While there are legitimate privacy concerns associated with biometrics, biometric data can also be used beneficially and can even protect our security in certain ways.  Biometrics offers an efficient solution for business owners when it comes to security operations.  Biometrics is by far the fastest way to accurately identify people.  Biometric characteristics cannot be duplicated, guessed, lost, or forgotten, which allows for confident identification of individuals.  In addition, being able to track activity and transactions creates complete employee accountability.  The use of biometrics can also make it significantly harder to commit fraud, making banking more profitable and secure.  

The use of biometric identification has also become a new way to fight the war on terror and control borders.  The US, UK, and Canada have implemented biometric technology at borders.   The Department of Homeland Security has implemented biometric border control starting with the US VISIT program and now the OBIM to accurately separate between leisure and business visitors and terrorists and illegal aliens.  The US has also started using biometric passports called e-Passports as a way to more efficiently and accurately move travelers through security at borders.  This is definitely a relevant interest to today with the growing threats of ISIS and the increase in terrorist action.

Current Privacy Laws and Suggestions for Protection from Biometrics

Currently there is very little in the way of privacy protection laws regarding Biometrics.  Only two states, Illinois and Texas, have any formal legislation expressly giving privacy rights to individuals regarding biometrics.  Illinois and Texas have statutes that regulate the use, disclosure, and destruction of biometric data by private organizations or individuals.  The lawsuit against Facebook, Licata v. Facebook, was filed first in Illinois under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.  Arizona, Illinois, and Louisiana do not allow schools to collect biometric data without parental consent. Maine, Missouri, and New Hampshire prohibit the use of biometric data with driver’s licenses.  Other than those restrictions, there are no other legal restrictions to date on biometric data use and collection in the United States.  Even though only two out of fifty states have statutes regarding biometrics, these two statutes end up giving one in eight Americans the legal right to biometric privacy.

While there is no federal law and many states do not have statutes regarding biometric privacy, several private and public organizations have put together lists of suggestions for biometric privacy.  The Federal Trade Commision has put together a list that is summarized well by one of our readings.  The overall consensus seems to be that the use of biometrics is okay as long as: databases are secure, there is a process for deleting data, data is not collected in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, a sign is posted letting people know if there is facial recognition technology doing facial scans, there is an option to opt out, consent is gained before using data, and is not used to identify anonymous persons.

My Personal Views

I find the idea of biometrics fascinating.  I think it is really cool that we are able to use technology to accurately identify people faster than humans can.  I also see how that can be scary and have dangerous implications.  I see biometric identification becoming the future of identification (just look at how we sign into our Smartphones with our thumb print or voice recognition).  I am also a fan of the idea that biometrics can help in the war on terror, preventing fraud, and even make ad experiences more personal.  All that being said, I think that there needs to be workable policies for regulating the use, disclosure, and destruction of that data in every state and on the federal level.  People should have the right to live private lives if they choose to, which includes not having to look at a billboard that knows who you are and caters its choice in ads to your consumer habits.

LEARNING TAKEAWAYS FOR WEEK 3

1. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not set a precedent on anonymous litigation to date, courts will often grant anonymity based on content based tests or balancing tests, balancing the privacy of the plaintiff with the rights of the public.

2. Some factors that affect the granting of anonymity include...

• The ages of the litigants
• Whether the plaintiff will face mental/physical retaliation if his/her identity is disclosed
• If the case is criminal or civil
• The significance of public interest in open courts
• If anonymity will infringe upon the rights of the defendant

3. There are policy considerations that go along with anonymous litigation, including maintaining the openness of the courts, the rights of the defendants, and the fact that pseudonymity is a type of closure, akin to sealing or redaction, which some would argue shuts the public out. 

4. Precedence is set by the U.S. Supreme Court (being the highest court in the land) except if...

• Challenged by state laws ( rulings are non-binding in state courts unless it is a Constitutional issue)
• There are differences in the case as legal interpretation is taken within the context of the case

5. Thirteen states have passed laws regulating the posting of mugshots online.

6. The legal age of consent in Utah is 16 years of age for women and 18 years of age for men. 

Question of the Week No. 3

The commercial use of facial recognition technology for security, access, marketing and customer service is rapidly growing.  Privacy advocates argue that widespread use of the technology will allow businesses to identify and track almost anyone in public without their consent or even knowledge.  Businesses argue that individuals should not expect complete privacy in public and that some loss of privacy is outweighed by the benefits the technology offers consumers and businesses.  Multiple privacy, government and industry organizations have listed best practices regarding the commercial use of biometric technology, but the recommendations often conflict and no consensus has been reached.

Should businesses be required to obtain a person’s consent, express or implied, before using facial recognition technology?

CLASS EXERCISE---ANONYMITY APPLIED

Despite the recent trend of websites to adopt policies requiring a real name for online posters, the students were overwhelmingly opposed to such policies in principle and strongly favored the right to post anonymously online.  There was some sentiment, however, for the current state of the law that allows anonymity to be pierced in some situations pursuant to a court order.  To test the strength of  the students' views they were given a hypothetical based on an actual incident where in 2013 an anonymous poster on 4Chan's /b/ Random board perpetrated an internet hoax by encouraging young girls to cut themselves in protest of pop star Justin Bieber being seen smoking a marijuana joint.  The anonymous poster started a "#cutforbieber" hashtag which went viral on the internet and posted several graphic images of girls who purportedly cut their arms as part of the campaign.  The campaign and photos were later revealed to be a hoax and fortunately no girls actually cut themselves.  In the hypothetical presented to the students, however, several girls actually harm themselves and one dies.  In the hypothetical there is a resulting  public outcry and a call for the website involved to change its anonymous posting policy.  The hypothetical situation and the student response is set out below:
                                                        The Hypothetical
A group of 10-12 year old Justin Bieber fans, in response to the 4Chan hoax, cut themselves. Three girls are hospitalized and one dies.  The grieving fathers want to expose the anonymous person who perpetrated the hoax.  They hold a news conference and demand that you, as owner of the website, take the following actions:

1.  explain why you would allow your website to be used  by anonymous “animals” to  intentionally prey on impressionable young girls; and

2.  change your policy and require everyone to establish an account using a real name so wrongdoers may be held accountable.

The media are at 4Chan's corporate headquarters waiting for your response and the CEO has tasked you with drafting a written statement to be issued.

The students were broken into two groups and given 20 minutes to draft  a written statement for the media.
                                                  Group one's statement

We are deeply troubled about this incident and send our sincere condolences to the victims and their families.  In response to recent concerns about the function of our website, we would like to address the importance of freedom of speech, particularly anonymous speech, which is protected under the First Amendment. Anonymous speech allows people to present opinions they might not otherwise voice. Those seeking help from addictions or mental health issues can use anonymous speech as a platform for recovery or advice. While this incident highlights the dark side of anonymous speech, many people have benefited from using 4Chan as a platform to find help and foster a community of individuals in similar situations.  As such, we have decided to maintain our current policies on anonymity. We encourage our users to be sensitive in their future posts. We are deeply sorry for the situation of the victims but the benefits of free speech, and by extension, anonymous speech, will continue to be represented on our website. We will not be requiring a real name policy on our website. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families at this time.
                                               
                                                Group Two's statement

We sympathize with the events that have occurred, and we offer our condolences towards the families affected by this tragedy. However, we will not be changing our policy pertaining to the anonymity of our users. 4Chan was founded on the principles of free and anonymous speech, regardless of content. This ‘#cutforbeiber’ hoax was one that was perpetrated by a radical subgroup of our community, that does not represent the culture of our site as a whole. While this hoax did originate on our site, it quickly spread to other communities out of our control, and these are the communities where it did the most harm. 4chan was founded as a social forum, and as such, we are committed to maintaining this space on the internet for free and anonymous speech. Therefore, we will not be changing our policies regarding anonymity.

Professor's note: As an aside, neither group discussed the possibility of having the site post a prominent warning that content posted on the site, including comments and images, may be offensive, inaccurate or fake. Most students knew that the acronym used to identify the 4Chan Random Board,  "NSFW", stood for "not safe for work" and was sufficient to alert a viewer that graphic or controversial materials may be psoted.

 

LEARNING TAKEAWAYS FOR WEEK TWO

1. On 13 May 2014, a "right to be forgotten" was established by the Court of Justice of the European Union.  This right allows individuals to petition search engines to unlink their name to certain search results.

2.  A "right to be forgotten" has caused a controversy between those who see it as a way to rewrite history and those who see it as a way to preserve individual privacy.  It has also created a concern that it could cause government censorship of the internet.  While the information will still exist, it will be practically obsolete after it is no longer easily searchable. 

3.  Hello Barbie: Two parents from California are suing Matel, in regards to the new toy Hello Barbie.  Hello Barbie is a barbie doll that can talk to your child.  Parents are required to set up the account online before the microphone is activated.  Once activated, the Barbie is then able to collect voice recordings, which are then responded to based off of algorithms by Matel.  These parents are suing under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule.

4.  Free Speech and Anonymous Speech are two values that have historically protected whistleblowers, political dissidents, victims, and those seeking help.  With the internet, anonymous speech has become a source for debate.  On one side, the ability to stay anonymous on the internet has helped many people have a voice.  On the other, opaque user names have become a way for trolls and cowards to say mean, misogynistic, racist, and other offensive things.

5.  Anonymous Apps, such as YikYak, Whisper, and Snapchat, have come under scrutiny of late because of what they do with your information.  For example, Whisper is able to track people's geolocation and Snapchat may not actually make your pictures disappear. 

John and Jane Doe, Who?

Traditionally, lawsuits, and the parties involved in them, are public record. Occasionally, cases come along where one party would like their name to stay off of the records for privacy reasons. In certain circumstances, they are able to file their suit under a false name. This is called John and Jane Doe legislation. Perhaps the most famous example of this John Doe legislation would be the Rowe v Wade case that has been referenced in class a few times. The actual plaintiff in this case was a Miss Norma McCorvey, who chose to file under the name Jane Rowe to keep her own identity out of the public light. A more recent example would be a "John Doe" from California, who started a potentially class action lawsuit against the Ashley Madison websites’ parent company, Avid Life Media, for not informing clients of the breach in security soon enough, once the popular adultery website was hacked. Although people have their personal reasons for filing under fictitious names, this post will help identify situations where it is appropriate for people to sue under false names and preserve their anonymity as well as point out some critiques to this attempt at privacy.

Privacy As Protection

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) provides that "In the complaint the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties.” Although this seems to bar a John/Jane Doe policy, courts have still made allowances in certain circumstances, based on their interpretation of rule 10(a). Taken into consideration when a person wants to file under a fictitious name, is their motivation. If this person is simply wanting to avoid the irritation and inconvenience involved with the publication of a lawsuit, they will not be granted anonymity. The only cases where anonymity will be granted are those in which there is a threat of retaliation against the plaintiff, or the possibility of harm, should they reveal their identity. This possible retaliation does not necessarily have to be physically harmful, it could be an emotional, social, or economic threat to well being also. The other type of case would be a situation where privacy is necessary to protect an individual from revealing intimate details about themselves. The main examples of these cases are those dealing with matters such as abortion, sexual assault, birth control, and abuse. Crimes such as rape or incest, which have a very high possibility of retaliation from the defendant, can usually be filed anonymously, should the victim want that. Finally, lawsuits against the government that may end in a criminal prosecution after the case has been filed are sometimes able to be filed under a fake name. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/filing-a-lawsuit-anonymously.html Although not all courts recognize fictitious plaintiffs, many do understand that behind the false pretenses, these are real, distressed people, who need a way to maintain their obscurity. 

The Critics Say

One argument against anonymous filing is that this process diminishes the value of free speech. Defendants and defense attorneys argue that there is a constitutional right in knowing who is filling a suit against you and in being able to challenge that person in a court setting. Many courts will instead issue a protective order, to keep the plaintiff in a safe environment throughout their suit, without granting anonymity. More conservative courts will have a stricter interpretation of rule 10(a) and will dismiss cases where the plaintiff is not named. In order to avoid dismissal, plaintiffs are warned beforehand that they should try an alternate method as opposed to false identification. These courts see safe alternatives as filling under a person’s legal name and then seeking a protective order, or using a pseudonym but attaching your real name to a letter to the court, or using a fictitious name but verifying one’s true identity with a signature on the complaint. Many believe that anonymous filing goes against the very nature of lawsuits, defending one’s stance to the court and the public. When only one party, the defendant who did not readily engage in the lawsuit, is outed to the public, a general sense of fairness is lost. As well as being unfair to the defendant, not knowing who they are involved in this litigation with, the public has no idea. The use of false names does not mean the public cannot attend the trial, but it does mean that they cannot disclose information about the trial, which again is seen as a detriment to the first amendment and the freedom of speech. Critics believe that filing under one’s real name should not only be seen as a formality, but as an integral foundation of the frankness and public involvement within the American legal system. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2463&context=ndlr

A Middle Ground

I find myself on the fence about this issue. I do believe that it enhances the free speech of the plaintiff who first engages the lawsuit, because they are able to file anonymously and therefore avoid potential backlash to whatever they are saying, but it also diminishes the potential voice of others. These pseudonyms seem to put the defendant in a backseat position, seeing as how they are facing a lawsuit from an unknown person. It would be very confusing and frustrating defending oneself against no one. In addition, although the public may still observe the legal proceedings, they must keep quiet about what they witness, which may not be wholly appropriate. This issue is difficult, it seems as if it is impossible to find a balance between freedom of speech and the right to privacy. What do you guys think?

Question of the Week No. 2

Police booking photos are routinely taken when a person is arrested by a law enforcement agency.  These mug shots are public documents in most states and have spawned several websites which post the mug shots online, e.g. mugshots.com.  In 2013, Utah passed a law that forces people who want copies of mug shots to swear under oath that they will not post it on a website that charges a fee to remove the photo.  Open records advocates have warned that the bill sets a dangerous precedent of the government demanding to know what someone intends to do with public information.  Privacy advocates argue that some arrested persons are never charged with a crime or are acquitted and should not have to pay a fee to eliminate an embarrassing and private incident.  Is Utah’s mug shot law sound public policy?

LEARNING TAKEAWAYS FOR WEEK ONE

1.  The word privacy does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.  However, a right of privacy has been inferred from the First Amendment, the Third Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

2.  The right of privacy has been defined in many different ways and is flexible and is not absolute.  A right of privacy may be legally recognized under constitutional law, statutory enactment and common law.

3.  The legal touchstone of a right of privacy is whether there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy."  To be recognized the person claiming the right of privacy must exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation must be deemed reasonable by society.  This test, formulated in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision of U.S. v. Katz, was in the context of a Fourth Amendment decision, but has been recognized and applied in many other contexts, both civil and criminal.

4.  Context often determines whether a right of privacy is legally recognized and has been invaded. The context may include, among other things, the location of the alleged invasion, the nature of the information or interest at issue and the manner of the invasion.  Technology is having a profound impact

5.  The four common law privacy torts include intrusion upon seclusion, casting someone in a false light, misappropriation of name or likeness and disclosure of private facts.  The common law privacy torts are state based claims and not all four torts are recognized in every state.  Utah recognizes all four torts.

WHY A REAL NAME POLICY FOR ONLINE COMMENTS MAKES SENSE (EXCEPT WHEN IT DOESN'T)

The debate about anonymity on the internet has raged since the advent of the internet. The debate usually pits free speech advocates against proponents of civility and accountability with both sides approaching the issue with an all or nothing mentality.  The  past few years, however,  have witnessed a growing trend among website owners to require persons to use their real names in order to post or comment online.  Facebook, YouTube and  Quora are just a few of the more notable websites that have recently joined this trend. One commentator has even  advocated a mandatory internet-wide real names policy.  This post identifies the main arguments for and against a real name policy and sets out the authors view as to the proper policy that should be adopted.

                          Promoting Civility & Insuring Accountability

Advocates for requiring a person to use their real name (or at least a recognized user name) primarily argue that such a policy raises the level of civility and quality of discourse on the internet, fosters accountability, discourages trolls and abusive posts and provides valuable contextual information for the reader to assess the post.  Persons who are defamed anonymously are often unable to seek judicial relief because the wrongdoers are anonymous.   And, there are numerous example of persons abusing their power and avoiding accountability for what they say by hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.   The poster child for this latter concern was the U.S. Attorney in New Orleans, who was a highly respected attorney and one of the longest serving U.S. Attorneys in the country, but resigned in December of 2012 when it was discovered that two of his top deputies were using the internet to anonymously attack persons their office was investigating.   Another example is the Cleveland, Ohio State Judge who made anonymous comments about several high profile cases that were pending before her and then sued the paper when she was outed.  Slate Senior Editor Emily Bazelon reflects the views of many when she argues that a free democracy is better off when everyone is forced to put their name to their words, noting that online anonymous users are poisoning civil discourse with their vile and defamatory comments, all under the excuse of "free speech."   4Chan, Whisper, Yik Yak and other anonymous sites have become vehicles for racist, misogynist and generally hateful commentary without any accountability.

                       Protecting Whistleblowers & Fostering Robust Speech

Proponents of anonymity acknowledge that abuses may sometimes occur, but argue that anonymous speech has a long and hallowed tradition in our country and, indeed, enjoys constitutional protection.  Absent anonymity, speech will be unnecessarily chilled, they argue.  How many abused women, whistleblowers and political dissidents will come forward if they must do so using their real names?  Anonymous Facebook and Twitter communications were essential during the Arab Spring and anonymity allows victims of domestic violence to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.  In a recent post, David Maas of the Electronic Frontier Foundation identifies 16 different groups of persons who benefit from anonymity besides trolls and political dissidents. Maas argues that anonymity is important to anyone who doesn't want every facet of their online life tied to a Google search of their name.  He focuses on the free speech promoting aspects of anonymity when he argues " To suggest anonymity should be forbidden because of troll-noise is just as bad as suggesting a ban on protesting because the only demonstrators you have ever encountered are from the Westboro Baptist Church—the trolls of the picket world.

The website geekfeminism.org has created a Wiki which compiles a list of persons harmed by a real names policy.

Some commentators argue that anonymity actually promotes truth and trustworthiness on the internet. http://irevolution.net/2013/10/22/trustworthiness-and-truth/.  And, of course, review sites like Avvo and Yelp depend on anonymity to encourage users to give candid reviews of services and products and have vigorously defended the right of anonymity by resisting efforts to unmask the identity of site users.  Although courts have generally been supportive of protecting the anonymity of online reviewers,  there have been some exceptions, particularly when a plaintiff claims he or she has been defamed by a false review or that the reviewer violated a term of employment.  For examples of recent court rulings in this area see  here, here, here, here and here.

Traditional media, who are struggling to adjust to the online world, have adopted various approaches.  Some newspapers allow anonymous comments, but editors moderate all posts by reserving the right to delete comments that violate the papers posted community guidelines, such as no racist, sexist or personal attacks.  KSL TV follows this approach in its Comments Policy.  This is labor intensive, however, and with the economic challenges traditional media, this approach has lost favor of late. The Salt Lake Tribune allows opaque user names, but you are required to have a real email address in order to open an account which is a prerequisite to posting comments.  Comments are not moderated by Tribune editors, but are subject to being deleted if they violate the Tribune's terms of use.  Other newspapers permit readers to self police the comments by allowing readers to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on each comment.  If a particular comment receives a certain number of down votes it is removed.  With Facebook's ubiquity and the ability to log onto a site via Facebook, many newspapers allow a commenter to check in with Facebook and have reported that such a policy has improved the quality of comments.

                           Anonymity, But With Potential Accountability

 While it certainly is well within the rights of any website to dictate its own terms of use, I place my thumb on the free speech side of the scale when it comes to anonymous speech.  We unavoidably stifle and restrict free expression when we rule out anonymous statements.  That does not mean that anonymous posters should be given free reign to libel and attack others with impunity; it just means that they have the right to speak anonymously and they must be willing to accept the consequences in the event their identity is discovered.  In today's increasingly transparent world, it is becoming very difficult to be truly anonymous in the face of a persistent effort to learn someone's identity.  Moreover, there are existing legal processes that allow a judicially compelled disclosure of identity when certain legal threshold showings are made.  In my view, this regime (allowing initial anonymity with judicially compelled disclosure under certain circumstances) strikes a reasonable balance between the competing interests.

Question of the Week No. 1

Should the U.S. Congress statutorily recognize a "right to be forgotten"?

WELCOME TO PRIVACY IN A DIGITAL AGE

Are we hearing the death rattle of personal privacy? Will drones, ubiquitous video cameras, automatic license plate readers, GPS enabled mobile devices, and the collection of massive amounts of data by the NSA, data brokers and others usher in a new era of around the clock surveillance where our everyday movements and activities are tracked by the NSA, law enforcement and our neighbors alike?  Will facial recognition, DNA databases and other biometric technologies render anonymity a thing of the past?  Will data aggregators become so proficient at mining personal information that our lives become an open book for anyone to peruse with 15 minutes of online research or $4.99 to buy a personal profile?   Has our infatuation with sharing, as embodied by Facebook, Twitter, You Tube, Foursquare and other social networking sites, fundamentally altered our definition of privacy? 

Are we willing to trade off some of our privacy in exchange for safety, convenience, discounts or free services? Are the constitutional  underpinnings of privacy, painstakingly developed over decades through a case by case judicial process, no longer suitable for the fast moving information age?   Or is privacy simply being redefined to reflect the realities of our modern digital world?   Will technology develop new ways to block internet use tracking, encrypt our personal information, thwart facial recognition technology and enable us to employ anti-spy countermeasures to safeguard our personal privacy?  Has the public's outrage arising from the revelations of Edward Snowden already dimmed with time?  Will the courts fundamentally reshape the contours of privacy in light of new technologies? Will the recent terrorist acts in Paris and California usher in a new era of government surveillance? Will Congress or the states weigh in on what promises over the next few years to be an epic clash between the values of privacy and transparency?

        These and other questions are becoming front and center in our national debate and will be our focus in class as we address the challenges of protecting privacy in an age of information abundance.