San Francisco Chronicle, February 26, 2012 by Paul M. Schwartz
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/25/INNB1N9ULJ.DTL
William Prosser, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, altered the path of American law in 1960. He did so with an article, simply titled “Privacy,” in our law school’s California Law Review. This article had an unparalleled influence on the development of the law, one still felt today.
San Francisco Chronicle, Dot.Commentary, February 10, 2012 by James Temple
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/10/BUJ31N4R67.DTL
In an interview, he said European—particularly German—perceptions are rooted in 19th century philosophers such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, as well as the way private information was used against citizens under communist rule and dictators like Adolf Hitler. “Americans just feel more comfortable with this rough-and-tumble social discourse,” he said.
San Francisco Chronicle, Dot.Commentary, January 27, 2012 by James Temple
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/26/BU5N1MUAJB.DTL
Paul Schwartz, faculty director for the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, noted that the broad technological trends of the day, in and of themselves, raise “all kinds of data security and privacy issues.”
Policy by the Numbers, January 9, 2012 by Paul M. Schwartz & Daniel J. Solove
http://policybythenumbers.blogspot.com/2012/01/google-ngram-and-information-privacy.html
In our recent work, The PII Problem, we drew on the NGram viewer to gain a sense of peaks and valleys in policymakers’ attention to “information privacy” from 1950 to 2000…. From the 1990s on, the continuing use of the attention to “information privacy” reflected society’s growing concern with privacy in the PC and then Internet era.
Washington Internet Daily, January 5, 2012 by Kamala Lane
http://www.warren-news.com/widtrial.htm (registration required)
There should be incentives for companies “to keep information in the least identifiable form possible,” Schwartz said. Companies also should have an obligation “to track what happens to records after they’re released” and risk assessments are needed to figure out when that identifiable information is likely to become identified “and allow people to assess the levels of risk that follow.”
American Public Media, Marketplace, September 14, 2011 by John Moe
http://bit.ly/nRykqJ
“In Europe, there is a comprehensive privacy law in each nation which requires that online privacy be protected. In the U.S., we regulate sector by sector, and there are notable gaps in protection. We have statutory protection for things like health care privacy, video privacy, credit card records. But there is no one law that protects online privacy. The exception for that is there is a Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, but that only protects those who are 13 years or younger.”
The New York Times, March 28, 2011 by Miguel Helft and Matt Richtel
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/technology/29facebook.html?scp=2&sq=Berkeley&st=nyt
Mr. Schwartz said Facebook seemed to have learned quickly that demands for regulation would pile up, not just from users and advocacy groups, but from competitors. “What they’re doing is pragmatic, and it’s pragmatic to do it sooner rather than later,” he said.
“The practical implication is it’s going to make it more difficult for advocates to convince members of Congress that Facebook presents a privacy problem,” said Chris Jay Hoofnagle…. “One of the big points is to show lawmakers that Facebook is important to their own campaigns,” Mr. Hoofnagle said. “Once that fact is established, Congress will not touch Facebook.”
The Christian Science Monitor, August 12, 2010 by Stephen Kurczy
http://bit.ly/dheORv
Street View’s opt-out option, says Paul Schwartz of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology in California, highlights how Web users can snoop without being snooped on. “The Golden Rule is not enforced or enforceable,” he says. “Google is not saying that since you’ve opted out, you can’t use [Street View] forever more. It allows people to become free riders.”
The New York Times, February 13, 2010 by Anna Bernasek
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14disclose.html
In a 2008 paper, Paul M. Schwartz, a professor at the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that tax returns would “increasingly be subject to the same kind of forces, legal and otherwise, as other personal information.”
BNA Electronic Commerce, November 11, 2009 by Amy E. Bivins
http://www.hunton.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/16728/Privacy_Advocates_Urge_FTC_Lawmakers_To_Scrutinize_Data_Sharing_11.09.pdf
“Privacy notices make companies think about what their privacy practices are,” Schwartz said. “Policies also give privacy advocates an opportunity to examine business practices related to consumer information.”…When it comes to data-sharing between online services, transparency gains additional importance, he added.
The New York Times, July 31, 2009 by Stephanie Clifford
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/business/media/31privacy.html?_r=1
Paul M. Schwartz, a law professor and privacy expert at the law school of the University of California, Berkeley, said the unwitting participation by consumers makes online marketing different from offline. “Interactive media really gets into this creepy Orwellian thing, where it’s a record of our thoughts on the way to decision-making,” he said. “We’re like the data-input clerks now for the industry.”
NPR, Morning Edition, June 4, 2009 by Martin Kaste
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104922405
For almost three years, the Bush administration tried to quash the lawsuit, arguing that the wiretapping program was simply too secret for court. This is known as the state secrets privilege, and that usually is enough to convince a court to shut a case down. “The general attitude has been extremely deferential and has taken the government at its word, and has decided that if there are state secrets, then there’s state secrets,” Schwartz says.
The New York Times, March 11, 2009 by Stephanie Clifford
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/business/media/11target.html?_r=1
Paul M. Schwartz, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and an information privacy law expert, said tracking by advertisers was problematic. “People should be allowed to trade most kinds of information for value as long as the terms are fair,” he said. “They’re not fair now.”
San Francisco Chronicle, March 1, 2009 by Paul M. Schwartz
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/01/INDK164GNR.DTL&type=printable
“Sadly, rational inquiry about telecommunications surveillance is prevented by the haphazard and incomplete information that the government collects about its own behavior. Neither the government nor outside experts know the basic facts about our surveillance practices.”
Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 21, 2008 by Lisa Guernsey
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i13/13a00103.htm
“A chief privacy officer,” Mr. Schwartz says, “can clear up these misunderstandings.”
Daily Tech, July 1, by Tom Corelis
http://www.dailytech.com/Accord+Could+Give+US+Government+Access+to+Private+Data+on+EU+Citizens/article12236.htm
“The reason it’s a big deal is that it is going to lower the whole transaction cost for the U.S. government to get information from Europe,” said Paul M. Schwartz. “Most of the negotiations will already be completed. They will just be able to say, ‘Look, we provide adequate protection, so you’re required to turn it over.’”
The New York Times, June 28, by Charlie Savage
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/washington/28privacy.html?scp=2&sq=Charlie+Savage+&st=nyt
“The reason it’s a big deal is that it is going to lower the whole transaction cost for the U.S. government to get information from Europe.… Most of the negotiations will already be completed. They will just be able to say, ‘Look, we provide adequate protection, so you’re required to turn it over.’”
KGO-TV, Feb. 15, by Mark Matthews
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=5961290
“If the government feels that it needs to do something that the law does not allow, what they need to do is go to Congress and say, look, we’ve got to change the law,” said Paul Schwartz.