Gop will pick up seats now but won’t achieve a filibuster proof majority – increasing Trump’s approval rating flips it
Download 186.34 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 4. New ECPA legislation restores privacy rights – plan isn’t necessary
- 5. No violation of privacy, parents can opt out of disclosure
Privacy Advantage1. Alt causes – big data, NSA surveillance, social media, the Internet all make access to student data inevitable2. Epistemological biases exaggerate the impact of privacy Strahilevitz 13 — (Lior Strahilevitz, prof of law @ UChicago, “Toward a Positive Theory of Privacy Law,” Working Paper, 2013, http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1588&context=law_and_economics, JSO) A positive account of American privacy law requires us to be sensitive∂ to the personalities of Americans consumers. We must not ignore the personalities∂ of American privacy law scholars either. People who care a∂ great deal about their personal privacy, and the privacy rights of others,∂ tend to be drawn toward writing about privacy law.127 People who have∂ little concern for their own privacy are unlikely to become privacy scholars.∂ Recall that the 20 percent of the population Alan Westin described as∂ “privacy unconcerned” not only do not value their own privacy highly but ∂ also tend to have a very difficult time understanding why anyone would∂ value their privacy — they simply do not grasp why privacy might be a∂ big deal to some people.128 The danger that selection effects among privacy scholars will render∂ privacy scholarship “out of touch” with realities on the ground is everpresent,∂ though the robust exchange of ideas that exists among scholars,∂ industry lawyers, and regulators in privacy is a welcome and important∂ corrective.129 This Article has tried to supplement the existing literature by∂ pointing to both the material upsides and downsides of privacy protection∂ in various contexts, so that scholars will have a firmer grasp on the political∂ and path-dependency dynamics that shape privacy law. Along the way,∂ it has emphasized the new challenges presented in an era of Big Data. In∂ particular, it has hypothesized that when industry or government employ∂ Big Data, they are subjecting consumers to refined personality tests. And∂ whereas personality discrimination in employment has long been accepted,∂ its widespread use in the pricing and delivery of mass-market goods and∂ services is an important new issue. Understanding who wins and who loses∂ from this increased reliance on personality discrimination is vital as we∂ seek to predict how the law will react. 3. The plan can’t remove the ASVAB standardized test from schools – that decks solvency because recruiters will still get student information 4. New ECPA legislation restores privacy rights – plan isn’t necessaryChris Calabrese 15, the legislative counsel for privacy-related issues in the American Civil Liberties Union, “Post USA Freedom Act: There's more to be done,” 7/5/15, http://www.ourmidland.com/opinion/editorials/post-usa-freedom-act-there-s-more-to-be-done/article_6676dd8c-7565-5ba4-8387-0158caae0784.html, AZ But unless ECPA is reformed to reflect modern realities, government agents will continue to assert the authority to search our communications and our private possessions without a warrant and without showing any evidence whatsoever that a crime has been committed. That’s an intolerable and completely unwarranted invasion of our privacy. It isn’t what the law’s authors intended, of course. But government agencies are taking advantage of ECPA’s unintended consequences to evade constitutional checks on their powers. And as long as ECPA remains on the books as written, it no longer represents an unexpected assault on our liberty. It is an intentional one. Fortunately, members in both houses of Congress, led by Senators Mike Lee and Pat Leahy, and Representatives Kevin Yoder and Jared Polis, have introduced legislation to reform ECPA, and restore Fourth Amendment protections to our online communications. The ECPA Amendments Act and Email Privacy Act, respectively, would restore the law’s original purpose to protect privacy in the ways we communicate, transact businesses, learn and recreate today by protecting emails and other communications stored with third party service providers for any amount of time. Their legislation has broad, bipartisan support. It is backed by hundreds of members in Congress, including more than 270 House members. Outside the halls of Congress, conservatives, moderates and liberals, small and large businesses, labor unions, civil libertarians and former prosecutors all advocate reforms to an obsolete law that threatens the liberty and prosperity of the American people. Congress has regularly had to pass reforms to legislation that technology has rendered obsolete and vulnerable to exploitation by the executive branch. We’re calling on ECPA to be next. Since our founding as a nation, Americans have insisted that we be secure in our persons and secure in our liberties. We made progress toward that end with the passage of the USA Freedom Act. The next step is the reform of ECPA, and re-establishing that neither changes in technology nor laws that have outlived their purpose can be allowed to infringe on Americans’ privacy protections. 5. No violation of privacy, parents can opt out of disclosureKing, 16 (Dale King, The Director of the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) for the U.S. Department of Education, 11-01-2016, Dear Colleague, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/military-recruiter.pdf) The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, enacted in 2002, first added provisions concerning military recruiters to the ESEA, as § 9528 (now § 8528). Congress also added similar provisions to § 503 of Title 10, U.S. Code, in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and in subsequent amendments to § 503. Both of these laws require local educational agencies (LEAs) receiving assistance under the ESEA to provide military recruiters, upon request, access to specific information on a secondary school student, unless the parent of the student or the student opts out of the disclosure of this information, in which case the information may not be released without the parent or student’s prior written consent. Due to the recent amendments made by the ESSA to § 8528 of the ESEA, a request to the LEA to opt out of the disclosure of the specific information must be in writing and only a parent of a secondary school student may submit such a written request until the secondary school student has reached 18 years of age, when the right to submit such a written request and to provide prior written consent transfers from the parent to the secondary school student. (Section 8528 of the ESEA also requires that this same information be provided to institutions of higher education (IHEs) upon request, unless the parent of the secondary school student, or the secondary school student if the student has reached 18 years of age, requests in writing to opt out of the disclosure of this information, in which case the information may not be released without the parent’s or the student’s prior written consent.) 6. Removing campus access for military officials does not remove access to information – privacy infringement inevitableDirectory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 186.34 Kb. Share with your friends:
|