You are looking at 1 - 8 of 8 items

  • Author or Editor: A. Michael Froomkin x
Clear All Modify Search
This content is available to you

Edited by Ryan Calo, A. Michael Froomkin and Ian Kerr

This content is available to you

Edited by Ryan Calo, A. Michael Froomkin and Ian Kerr

This content is available to you

Edited by Ryan Calo, A. Michael Froomkin and Ian Kerr

This content is available to you

Edited by Ryan Calo, A. Michael Froomkin and Ian Kerr

You do not have access to this content

Edited by Ryan Calo, A. Michael Froomkin and Ian Kerr

Robot Law brings together exemplary research on robotics law and policy – an area of scholarly inquiry responding to transformative technology. Expert scholars from law, engineering, computer science and philosophy provide original contributions on topics such as liability, warfare, domestic law enforcement, personhood, and other cutting-edge issues in robotics and artificial intelligence. Together the chapters form a field-defining look at an area of law that will only grow in importance.
This content is available to you

A. Michael Froomkin

You do not have access to this content

A. Michael Froomkin

The US Constitution imposes limits on policy-makers that make adoption of EU-style privacy legislation protecting privacy in public difficult, and in some cases impossible. In the United States, therefore, one must devise innovative, if perhaps more limited, measures to protect privacy in public spaces. Encroachments on privacy through mass surveillance resemble the pollution crisis in that they impose an externality on the surveilled. By recasting privacy harms at least metaphorically as a form of pollution and invoking a familiar (if not uncontroversial) US regulatory solution, this proposal seeks a domesticated form of regulation with the potential to ignite a regulatory dynamic by collecting information about the privacy costs of previously unregulated activities that should, in the end, lead to significant results without running afoul of potential US constitutional limits that may constrain data retention and use policies. Counter-arguments focusing on the First Amendment right to data collection, the inadequacy of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), and the supposed worthlessness of notice-based regimes are also addressed.