Posts

Can gerrymandering ever be a good thing and help America to be a more flourishing democracy?

  In this blog post, I want to explore an idea if gerrymandering can ever be a good thing and help tAmerica to be a more flourishing democracy. Scarlett in her blog post addresses the idea of using data to help people by promoting content that may help users to better care for themselves. She describes a situation in which user interactions are being analysed and the algorithm senses users’ negative emotions from the content they are browsing. I agree with Scarlett that despite the good cause, it is a privacy concern and data is not used as we would like it to be. However, I think there is an argument to be made that there is an extent to which our data can be used by third parties. I do not have a framework which we could apply and see if this extent of data use is already a privacy concern or not. However, one of the qualifications for doing so would be using the data for a good cause. After all, our data is already circulating and is being used, thus we can not now turn the tide of
Post a Comment
Read more

Zane bc computer broke + Tim went to sleep :) - Property as Faculties

In this blog post, I want to the examine an extension of the "larger and juster" conception of property presented in James Madison's  On Property. Privacy as stemming from property rights is a fascinating idea, and it made me want to explore other classes of rights that could stem from this expanded understanding of property rights. In particular, I thought Madison's discussion of one's property in their person explicitly touched upon one's "faculties" as an integral part of their personhood and thus property. What Madison intends by "faculty" is not entirely clear, but it seems like a reasonably generous definition of the word would lead to an interpretation of Madison's argument voluminous enough to contain a fundamental right to education or other opportunities that meaningfully increase one's cognitive abilities or knowledge. In On Property , Madison states that a man "has an equal property in the free use of his faculties
Post a Comment
Read more

data and maps

After reading Deckey’s thesis, one of the questions I had was what a privacy right looks like on a practical level. Deckey argues that because voting data is in the possession of all kinds of entities, these entities have the ability to manipulate citizens. Instead of allowing the government to collect anonymized data and use it for partisan gerrymandering, she advocates for people to have privacy rights in the information they share even if they do not legally own it. What does it mean to own a privacy right? If we are not able to sell our own data, what can we do with it? Should we sign contracts every time we choose to allow the government to use that specific piece of data? The proliferation of technology and the way it is used/developed seems to be problematic altogether in that it encourages data sharing and easy access.   “Anything beyond census data should not be used by a mapmaker unless there is clear demonstration that the process is serving a compelling state interest and i
Post a Comment
Read more

Big Brains

This piece by Annie brings together some of the ideas that we have explored in this class in such a beautiful way including conceptions of property, tacit consent, and constitutional interpretation.  Conceptualizing data as property puts it under the scope of property rights which then gives citizens the right to exclude others from it thus invoking our privacy rights is *chefs kiss.* It's interesting then to consider how tacitly consenting to use a certain service does not additionally grant platforms license to violate this right by using it for their own purposes. Deckey says "While one may agree to the terms and conditions of the initial moment of date collection... they do not consent to the evolving technology of aggregation which takes the initial situation out of context, unbeknownst to them and creates a digital file on the individual" (32.) It's like if I invited you over to my house for dinner and then you ask to go the bathroom but without my knowledge you
Post a Comment
Read more

Originalism doesn't seem relevant

Reading Annie’s thesis reminded me a lot about how rights as a concept are very interesting to consider within originalism. Personally, I don’t buy originalism. Relying on what a reasonable man would have construed when interpreting a statute requires the invoking of many subjective considerations and unarticulated extratextual factors, that essentially result in people deciding what the law should be. Considering many people at the time of the founders thought slavery/the deprivation of the rights of people of color and women were just, I don’t see any value in referring to what they think the text says in statutory interpretation (or what we think they think the text says). Especially with rights, the founders would not be able to fathom the ways in which they function today. As Deckey says, technology and data mining have ensured that privacy is relevant in ways the founders would never dream of, so why are we relying on their interpretations to adjudicate contemporary legal issue
Post a Comment
Read more

Gerrymandering - As American as apple pie

 Deckey's account of gerrymandering was extremely compelling. The angle of engagement via privacy concerns was not only unique but also insightful in exploring the disconnect between the progression of technology and the evolution of policy. However, as I read and researched a bit further into the issue, I couldn't help but question one thing: why is gerrymandering even commonplace in the first place? More specifically, why is it that among most liberal Western societies, gerrymandering is a uniquely American issue?  In most Western liberal societies, the issue of gerrymandering is largely negated through the use of independent redistricting commissions. This seemingly intuitive institution is made up of non-partisan experts who periodically meet to discuss issues of redistricting. In fact, it seems that gerrymandering seems to be most prominent in illiberal democracies. Singapore, Malaysia, and apartheid South Africa are all examples that come to mind. This then brings up an i
Post a Comment
Read more

Zuck and Elon Are Not Neutral

I found Deckey’s argument compelling, and it inspired me to consider the way that statutes treat social media companies. According to the Verge, " Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,  which was passed in 1996, says an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content." This protects social media companies from being held accountable for content published on their sites. Companies that claim Section 230 status, including Facebook and Twitter, are essentially supposed to be neutral third parties who allow other to share content on their platforms. A company that is neutral to the speech and activity on their site cannot also own the speech and activity taking place on the site. Once you own something, you are no longer a neutral observer as you have a stake in the game. Social media companies cannot claim neutrality in regard to content that they also claim to own. Thus, social media companies cannot hold true Section
Post a Comment
Read more