Jump to navigation Jump to search
Motivation To Discuss Reputation Bankruptcy
- "75% of US recruiters and human-resource professionals report that their companies require them to do online research about candidates, and many use a range of sites when scrutinizing applicants", recent Microsoft study (via )
- With quickly improving facial-recognition technology, there will be a stark challenge to "our expectation of anonymity in public" (via )
- Identity-related content:
- Pictures, Videos
- all pieces of content that would reveal the identity of a person [i.e. we believe a general discussion of Star Wars Kid  is not necessarily bad; however pieces of content linking Star Wars Kid's real name to the footage are potentially harmful for the person and moreover add very little value]
- Content uploaded by minors about themselves or other minors
- excludes: 25 year-old uploads pictures of when 16 (exception for content of you as a minor poster by another)
- Reference point: provision to wipe juvenile criminal record (e.g. expungement) 
- Individual Identified or Depicted
- Content Creator (Person who creates content i.e. takes a picture)
- Content Sharer (Person who uploads content to Content Storage/Distribution Platform)
- Content Storage/Distribution Platforms (Personal Blog vs Facebook)
- Search Engines
- Note: some of these parties could be the same person in a given scenario
The Recent Scholarship and Proposed Solutions
- Anupam Chander: Strengthened tort for public disclosure of private fact
- Paul Ohm: Law barring employers from firing based on legal off-duty conduct found in social networking profiles
- Dan Solove: Give legal right to sue Facebook friends where confidence has been breached
- Peter Taylor: Constitutional right to privacy/“oblivion” allowing more anonymity online
- Cass Sunstein: DMCA Notice-and-Takedown Model
- Germany considers law to ban employers from mining information on job candidates from social networking sites such as Facebook to protect people's privacy. 
- Jonathan Zittrain: Rating systems that allow you to declare reputation bankruptcy in certain area
- Market- and Norm- Based:
- Private companies to defend reputation, e.g. Reputation Defender
- Educate the public, especially young people
- Society norms to adapt to new media: "Please don't tweet this" (via )
- Tim Berners-Lee: establish market norm of employers barred from accessing Facebook data of prospective employees
- Entanglement: who "owns" what information about a person and thus what can be managed / deleted, i.e. reposts of images, comments, wall posts
- How far to go on the identity "continuum“
- Authentication > pseudonymity > anonymity (Ardia)
- Total deletion or selective management?
- Reputations would be meaningless if they could be subject to a legal right to manipulate (Chander)
- “The End of Forgetting” NY Times 7/25/10, Jeffrey Rosen (law professor at George Washington University) 
- Web takes away "second chances": "the worst thing you've done is often the first thing everyone knows about you"
- ReputationDefender a "promising short-term solution", but not enough given fast advances of "facial-recognition technology"
- "Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy: The Troubling Implications of a Right to Stop People From Speaking About You", Eugene Volokh 
- Scope: restrictions on communication
- "recognition of one free speech exception certainly does not mean the end of free speech generally"
- "possible unintended consequences of various justifications for information privacy speech restrictions [...] sufficiently troubling"
- "disclosure" tort - bars dissemination of "nonnewsworthy" personal information that most people would find highly private (some state laws more specific, e.g. "criminal laws forbidding the publication of the names of rape victims"
- (II)D. Contracts with Children: the "discussion of contracts presupposes that both parties are legally capable of entering into the contract and of accepting a disclaimer of any implied warranty of confidentiality. If a cyber-consumer is a child, then such an acceptance might not be valid" (Source: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 , 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501 et seq.; Matlick, note 245 infra; Singleton, infra note 251, text accompanying nn.76-79.)