CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Digitalization, Law, and RegulationPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Monitoring, Datafication, and Consent: Legal Approaches to Privacy in the Big Data Context

Open access
Strandburg, Katherine J.·2014·Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good
DOI 10.1017/cbo9781107590205.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction Knowledge is power. ‘Big data’ has great potential to benefit society. At the same time, its availability creates significant potential for mistaken, misguided, or malevolent uses of personal information. The conundrum for law is to provide space for big data to fulfill its potential for societal benefit, while protecting citizens adequately from related individual and social harms. Current privacy law evolved to address different concerns and must be adapted to confront big data’s challenges. This chapter addresses only one aspect of privacy law: the regulation of private sector acquisition, aggregation, and transfer of personal information. It provides an overview and taxonomy of current law, highlighting the mismatch between current law and the big data context, with the goal of informing the debate about how to bring big data practice and privacy regulation into optimal harmony. Part I briefly describes how privacy regulation in the United States has evolved in response to a changing technological and social milieu. Part II introduces a taxonomy of privacy laws relating to data acquisition, based on the following features: (1) whether the law provides a rule- or a fact-based standard; (2) whether the law is substantive or procedural, in a sense defined below; and (3) which mode(s) of data acquisition are covered by the law. It also argues that the recording, aggregation, and organization of information into a form that can be used for data mining, here dubbed ‘datafication’, has distinct privacy implications that often go unrecognized by current law. Part III provides a selective overview of relevant privacy laws in light of that taxonomy. Section A discusses the most standards-like legal regimes, such as the privacy torts, for which determining liability generally involves a fact-specific analysis of the behavior of both data subjects and those who acquire or transfer the data (‘data handlers’). Section B discusses the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) ‘unfair and deceptive trade practices’ standard, which depends on a fact-specific inquiry into the behavior of data handlers, but makes general assumptions about data subjects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781107590205.003

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Datafication has intensified, radically expanding the volume, range and granularity of data generated about people and places.

    “In other words, there has been a marked intensification of what has been termed 'dataficiation' [5]; that is, a radical expansion in the volume, range and granularity of the data being generated about people and places [4,6].”

    From The ethics of smart cities and urban science (2016) · cites this paper as [5]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Strandburg, K. J.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Strandburg, Katherine J.
ORCID
Strandburg, Katherine J.
Venue
Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2014-06-09
Pages
5-43
DOI
10.1017/cbo9781107590205.003
OpenAlex
W160301998
Cited by
32
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
17.45
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 26 d)
Locations
  • Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
big data, privacy law, datafication, data monitoring, data consent, personal data, data acquisition, data aggregation, data mining, privacy torts, Federal Trade Commission

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review