| WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2026 |
|---|
| 6:00 – 9:00 PM | Pre-Conference Junior Scholars Happy Hour – Lennie’s Brewpub *sponsored by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) |
|---|
| | | |
|---|
| THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2026 |
|---|
| 8:30 AM | BREAKFAST – First Floor Lobby |
|---|
| 9:00 – 9:25AM | WELCOME & LOGISTICS, Ari Ezra Waldman – DeLaney Moot Court Room (123) |
|---|
| 9:30 – 10:45 AM | SESSION 1 |
|---|
| | Author/Title | Room |
|---|
| | Kate Weisburd, Mandatory Surveillance Laws | 125 |
| | Commentator: Emily Tucker |
| | This paper exposes the uniquely mechanized definition, detection, proof, and adjudication of community supervision violations, which account for almost half of all prison admissions in the United States. |
| | Kate Sim, Incoherent Logic of Child Online Safety: From CSAM Detection to Help-seeking | 122 |
| | Commentator: Meg Jones |
| | This paper interrogates the slippery and fuzzy work of “child safety” in platform governance. It examines how a particular set of ideas about children, sexual violence, and technology shapes platform companies’ practices and regulatory interventions. |
| | Hannah Bloch-Wehba, How Tech Took Over | 121 |
| | Commentator: Julie Cohen |
| | This paper traces how tech companies became enmeshed within public governance over decades, maps the current functions they perform within the state, and explores the consequences for constitutional law. |
| | Yutang Hsiao, Fiduciary Data Governance | 203 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Peter Ormerod |
| | I propose a theory of fiduciary data governance to balance the competing interests of users and non-users in data creation, collection, and processing. The theory moves beyond any individual’s specific best interest to focus on collective purpose. |
| | Melodi Dinçer & Annie Dorsen, Returning to Dignity in a Siliclone World | 120 |
| | Commentator: Brenda Dvoskin |
| | This Paper offers a new approach to deterring nonconsensual digital replicas, and introduces the My Likeness, My Right Act, which has been introduced in multiple states and was drafted by the Paper’s authors. |
| | David Sella-Villa, Disloyalty by AI | 124 |
| | Commentator: Jeff Vagle |
| | Fiduciaries who use AI systems trained on client data violate their duty of loyalty for structural, policy, and practical reasons. Fiduciary use of AI may be inherently disloyal because viable solutions only address practical and policy concerns. |
| | Sarah Mathew & Richmond Wong, How AI Use Shapes Research Ethics for the IRB | 213 |
| | Commentator: danah boyd |
| | We report on ethnographic findings on how IRBs conceptualize privacy and other risks related to research practices involving emerging AI systems. We reflect on the potential and limits for IRBs as a lever to protect privacy in AI research. |
| | Perla Khattar, Adriana Alvarado Garcia & Alina Glaubitz, Ethical and Governance Risks of Synthetic Data | 216 |
| | Commentator: Daniel Susser |
| | This paper argues that synthetic data governance focuses too narrowly on privacy and bias and proposes a method-sensitive checklist that reframes synthetic data as a sociotechnical intervention. |
| | Bhargavi Ganesh, Jose A. Guridi, & Thiago Guimaraes Moraes, Redesigning AI Regulatory Sandboxes for Generative AI: Beyond Traditional For-Profit Innovation | 335 |
| | Commentator: Sarah Scheffler |
| | Our paper conceptually analyses the potential for AI regulatory sandboxes to expand regulatory learning and enable innovation amongst nonprofit and individual actors, given the narrow focus of current global sandboxes on institutional participation. |
| | Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Jeremy Seeman, Steven Marcus & Donovan Maust, Identifying “Identifiability”: From Regulatory Illusions to Techno-normative Frameworks to Protect Health Data Privacy | 214 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Abby Lemert |
| | Health privacy regulations are outdated and ill-equipped for big-data re-identification risk. Using a major NIH database as an example, this presentation explores flexible AI-driven approaches to balancing privacy protection with research utility. |
| 10:45 – 11:15 AM | BREAK |
|---|
| 11:15 AM – 12:30 PM | SESSION 2 |
|---|
| | Author/Title | Room |
|---|
| | DISCUSSION: Elettra Bietti & Salomé Viljoen, Technofeudalism, Technofascism, Broligarchy and Other Tech Futures | 121 |
| | Join a conversation about a set of ideologies that typically combine technological determinism, essentialized accounts of social hierarchy, and narratives of progress, masculinity and power. |
| | Akriti Gaur, Covert Connection and the First Amendment: The Nexus between State and Tech Platforms in an Era of Democratic Backsliding | 125 |
| | Commentator: Christina Koningisor |
| | This paper identifies a shift from discrete censorship toward a systemic “covert connection” in which states and platforms jointly engineer the infrastructure of expression. This phenomenon does not neatly map onto existing First Amendment doctrine. |
| | Gianclaudio Malgieri & Nina Baranowska, Theorizing Digital Well-being (harm) in the Law | 203 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Gaia Bernstein |
| | This paper proposes a legally usable definition of digital well-being and digital well-being harm that links digital platform design choices (e.g., recommender systems, engagement-driven interfaces) to contestable, evidence-sensitive legal harms. |
| | Laura Abelson, The Multidimensions of AI Chatbots as Evidence | 120 |
| | Commentator: Nofar Shemla Kadosh |
| | This article critically examines the use of various forms of AI chatbot data in criminal cases, considering issues of professional privilege, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, reliability, and probative value. |
| | Pam Dixon, Collective Dimensions of Privacy Across Ecosystems and AI: Case Studies and Analysis in Group Privacy | 122 |
| | Commentator: Ronald J. Coleman |
| | Privacy law governs individuals, but AI systems also generate harms and constitute groups at the collective level. Using case studies, this paper articulates the gaps and develops a governance architecture for addressing collective privacy interests. |
| | Stevie Glaberson, Emerald Tse, & Taman Mohamed, CPS Policing Pregnancy | 124 |
| | Commentator: Kate Weisburd |
| | Investigates how the family policing system works as a mechanism of social control, wielding surveillance, investigation, and family separation powers to dissuade politically disfavored reproductive behavior, punish resistance, and coerce conformity. |
| | Mateusz Grochowski & Frank Pasquale, Infrastructures of Emotions | 214 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Jay Conrad |
| | The paper proposes a three-part structure to theorize emotions as commodities in digital markets, and to regulate the affective computing that is now undermining so many consumers’ emotional integrity and well-being. |
| | Mark Verstraete, Privacy Law as Data Architecture | 213 |
| | Commentator: Jose Guridi |
| | This paper examines how privacy law requires firms to create data architecture and argues that this system of data management encourages firms to perform additional data processing activities and undermines obscurity. |
| | Xiaowei Yu, Conceptualizing Identifiability | 216 |
| | Commentator: Dan Bateyko |
| | This Article argues that the ambiguous scope of data privacy law is primarily caused by the internal structure of identifiability. It offers three reform pathways to reconceptualize this foundational concept for more coherent privacy protections. |
| | Xinyi Ma, The Transpacific Mirror: Relational Regulation of Consumer Privacy in the United States and China | 335 |
| | Commentator: Ayelet Gordon-Tapiero |
| | This paper analyzes why information privacy law in China and the United States is converging in practice through an institutional framework. |
| 12:30 – 2:00 PM | LUNCH & COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS, Ari Waldman – Indiana Memorial Union Alumni Hall *sponsored by Cook Medical |
|---|
| 2:00 – 3:15 PM | SESSION 3 |
|---|
| | Author/Title | Room |
|---|
| | Zina Makar, Possession and Incarceration | 121 |
| | Commentator: Ngozi Okidegbe |
| | The carceral state does not merely restrain physical liberty, it systematically converts legally cognizable rights into revocable privileges. This article reframes incarceration as a regime of entitlement deprivation–a distinct form of punishment. |
| | Andy Z. Wang, The Duty to Intrude | 122 |
| | Commentator: Michael Beauvais |
| | Some intrusions are good for privacy—think a website probing children for age—when they produce more privacy gains than losses. When people “reasonably expect” good intrusions, courts can impose a duty to intrude. |
| | Daniel Slate, Thinking Like a State: Governing Emergency Algorithms | 120 |
| | Commentator: Paul Ohm |
| | In emergencies, collection and processing enjoy legal leniencies, but the data outlives the disaster. Beyond securing AI’s benefits for emergency management, we need new law to regulate emergency data’s afterlife, especially for training AI models. |
| | Shreya Chowdhary, Justine Zhang, & Ben Green, Resisting AI Hype: A Political-Economic Analysis | 124 |
| | Commentator: Susan Tanner |
| | Rather than viewing AI hype as a problem of technical misunderstanding, we frame it as a distributed political-economic mechanism that concentrates power, drawing from analyses of prior cases of tech hype, and propose strategies for resisting it. |
| | Mifrah Hayath, Algorithmic Subordination in Artifical Gestation | 203 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Natalie Ram |
| | AI-governed reproductive technologies risk shifting deeply personal reproductive decisions into algorithmic control, raising serious privacy concerns over intimate biological data. |
| | Yafit Lev-Aretz, Privacy Law’s Great Bait-and-Switch | 125 |
| | Commentator: Alan Butler |
| | Platforms rely on a single click to justify surveillance of millions, yet courts refuse to let those users sue together. This paper exposes that bait-and-switch and argues that consent’s scalable legal fiction should also support collective redress. |
| | Haochen Sun, Utility v. Dignity: Rethinking the Utilitarian Foundation of Data Protection Laws in America and China | 214 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Richmond Wong |
| | This article argues that both China and the United States are now undergoing a second privacy revolution: a quiet yet profound transition from dignitarianism toward utilitarianism in the governance of personal data. |
| | Jack Maketa, Context Collapse and Method-Blindness in Privacy Law: From Cookies to Fingerprinting | 216 |
| | Commentator: Ella Corren |
| | This paper uses browser fingerprinting as a case study to understand how enforcement actions under state privacy law have consistently targeted the artifacts of surveillance rather than the methods by which it is accomplished. |
| | Mason R. Clark, Digital Dram Shops and Intoxicating Algorithms | 213 |
| | Commentator: Tal Zarsky |
| | This Article argues that digital platforms function as modern-day dram shops, profiting from and exacerbating user impairment through data-driven content escalation. Dram shop doctrine provides a historical analogue to address modern privacy harms. |
| | Emma Lurie, Danaé Metaxa, & Sorelle Friedler, Triangulating Across U.S. Federal AI Transparency Regimes | 335 |
| | Commentator: Gautam Hans |
| | Federal AI transparency mechanisms capture some dimensions of government AI use, but structural misalignment with how AI harms unfold means disclosure often arrives too late, leaving those subject to government AI decisions unable to contest it. |
| 3:15 – 3:45 PM | BREAK |
|---|
| 3:45 – 5:00 PM | SESSION 4 |
|---|
| | Author/Title | Room |
|---|
| | DISCUSSION: Meg Jones, Paul Ohm, & Margot Kaminski, Is AI Law Privacy Law? | 121 |
| | Is AI law just data protection law we kept putting off? Or is AI law genuinely distinct? Does it matter? Does PLSC need a rebrand? |
| | Ece Gumusel, Striking for Privacy: Contextualizing Worker Privacy, Masking, and the Governance of Labor Actions | 120 |
| | Commentator: Ben Green |
| | This paper examines how surveillance in higher education strikes undermines contextual integrity, and how masking helps protect worker privacy, trust, and collective norms. |
| | Sam Hafferty, Sophie Luskin, Miranda Wei, Madelyn Xiao, Jonathan Mayer, & Mihir Kshirsagar, In-App Parental Controls Effectiveness and Family Preferences | 122 |
| | Commentator: Arti Walker-Peddakotla |
| | This paper assesses parental control features available in popular mobile apps and devices to evaluate their comprehensibility and effectiveness through parents’ perspectives. |
| | Jordan Wallace-Wolf, The Deep Wrongs of Deepfakes: Defamation, Privacy, and the Tantamount Tort of False Light | 124 |
| | Commentator: Benjamin Sobel |
| | It is very plausible that overtly fake pornography is a moral wrong and a tortious one. But why? Is it a kind of defamation or a kind of privacy violation? I argue that it is a distinct fusion of both. |
| | Shira Gur-Arieh, LLMS and the Collapse of Legal Indeterminacy | 213 |
| | Commentator: Karen Levy |
| | Legal language is inherently indeterminate — ambiguous, vague, open-textured — and that indeterminacy serves important functions in law. This paper asks how LLMs handle, and mishandle, indeterminate language in interpretive legal tasks. |
| | Ayelet Gordon-Tapiero, Katrina Ligett, & Kobbi Nissim, On the Statistical Purposes Loophole under the GDPR | 214 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Yunsieg Kim |
| | We point to a loophole created by the GDPR exemption of aggregate statistics from the protection afforded to personal data. As a result, this category of data is largely outside of the control of the data subject. |
| | María P. Angel, The Legal Life of “Trust”: Reclaiming Its Analytical Role in AI Governance | 125 |
| | Commentator: Stevie Glaberson |
| | This Article shows how AI governance has shifted “trust” away from institutions and onto the technology itself, stripping it of its essential characteristics: the power asymmetries and vulnerabilities that digital governance is meant to confront. |
| | Matthew Gaske, State Attorneys General and Federalist Technology Regulation | 216 |
| | Commentator: Matthew Kugler |
| | Partisan state attorneys general can amplify consumer-protection enforcement by using existing legal authority and political autonomy to influence White House technology governance. The GenAI regulatory debate illustrates this approach’s feasibility. |
| | Brenda Dvoskin & Thomas Kadri, Cyberflashing | 335 |
| | Commentator: Melodi Dinçer |
| | This article argues that cyberflashing laws misidentify the harm of unsolicited nude images by treating nudity as inherently dangerous. It also challenges how these laws fetishize consent, extending critiques from data privacy to sexual privacy. |
| | Michael Sierra, Regulatory Sandboxes for AI and the Reproduction of Privacy Theater | 203 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Mimee Xu |
| | This paper argues that regulatory sandboxes can embed privacy-by-design into AI development and assesses whether they strengthen or dilute fundamental rights under the Artificial Intelligence Act. |
| 5:15 – 7:00PM | RECEPTION – Jerome Hall Law Library Reading Room *sponsored by The International Association of Privacy Professionals |
|---|
| | | |
|---|
| FRIDAY, MAY 29, 2026 |
|---|
| 8:30 AM | BREAKFAST – First Floor Lobby |
|---|
| 9:00 – 9:10 AM | LOGISTICS, Ari Ezra Waldman – DeLaney Moot Court Room (123) |
|---|
| 9:15 – 10:30 AM | SESSION 5 |
|---|
| | Author/Title | Room |
|---|
| | Ari Ezra Waldman, Predictive Data Dilemmas | 121 |
| | Commentator: Joe Tomain |
| | AI tools make probabilistic predictions about the future. This is not new for law. This paper explores how law has previously addressed the dilemmas of prediction from historical information and asks whether AI policy can learn from that history. |
| | Alexis Shore Ingber & Maria Angel, Dealing with Temporal Uncertainty in AI-Generated Evidence: Inputs for Courts | 122 |
| | Commentator: Abigail Jacobs |
| | This paper draws on a case law analysis to offer a framework for judges to assess data-based harms differently depending on whether an AI system is inferring who someone is *now* or predicting their *future*. |
| | Liang Chen, The Gentle Liberalizer of Regulation: How Soft Law Liberalized China’s Cross-Border Data Flow Regime | 203 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Gianclaudio Malgieri |
| | This paper reveals how China liberalized its data flow regime without amending hard laws. Economic bureaucracies used administrative soft law to neutralize rigid security mandates as a buffer zone. |
| | Susan Tanner, Privacy Law’s Vocabulary Problem: Intertextuality, Entextualization, and the Limits of Legal Language in the Age of AI | 124 |
| | Commentator: Alicia Solow-Niederman |
| | This paper uses corpus methods to show that privacy doctrine emphasizes collection and consent while downplaying AI-driven harms like inference and prediction. |
| | Meg Jones, Age Verification Beyond Porn: What Paxton v. Free Speech Coalition Could Mean for the Future of the Internet | 125 |
| | Commentator: Eric Null |
| | This article analyzes how Justice Thomas’s reasoning in Paxton v. FSC extends beyond sexually explicit content and maps out the constitutional terrain of post-Paxton internet regulation. |
| | Jae June Lee, Jayshree Sarathy, & danah boyd, Relational Data Governance: How Friction and Relational Work Preserve Contextual Integrity in the Federal Statistical System | 213 |
| | Commentator: Yan Shvartzshnaider |
| | Drawing on a study of the US Federal Statistical System, we argue that traditional data governance frameworks cannot account for the negotiated data exchanges that, in practice, function as a networked mode of governance. |
| | Katrina Geddes, The Inconsentability of Deepfakes | 216 |
| | Commentator: Simon Sun |
| | In this paper, I argue that individual consent to deepfake generation is deficient under conditions of platform capitalism, and also that certain uses of our AI likeness may be fundamentally inconsentable, even under conditions of perfect consent. |
| | Daniel Vilardell & Sunoo Park, Personal Data Is Personal for Everyone: The Technical Pitfalls of SRB v. EDPS | 214 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Steve Bellovin |
| | This Article argues the EU Court of Justice wrongly adopted a “relative” view of personal data under the GDPR. We argue that an “absolute” approach, largely dismissed in prior work, best aligns with cybersecurity best practices and the GDPR’s goals. |
| | Emily Tucker, Shared Privacy | 120 |
| | Commentator: Jordan Wallace-Wolf |
| | This paper argues that democracy is impossible without shared privacy. Shared privacy is not about protecting our information, but protecting our ability to experience our associations with one another as more than information exchange. |
| | Tomo Lazovich & Glencora Borradaile, Confronting the “Medopticon”: Interrogating the Privacy Risks of Pervasive Prescription Surveillance in the Context of Abortion and Gender-Affirming Care | 335 |
| | Commentator: Felix Wu |
| | This paper analyzes the privacy risks that prescription drug monitoring programs and interstate data sharing pose to abortion and gender-affirming care, providing risk minimization recommendations to both state regulators and patients seeking care. |
| 10:30 – 11:00 AM | BREAK |
|---|
| 11:00 AM – 12:15 PM | SESSION 6 |
|---|
| | Author/Title | Room |
|---|
| | DISCUSSION: Alan Butler, Kara Williams, Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, & Tyler Bridegan, Enforcement Roundtable | 121 |
| | This session will discuss what privacy law enforcement might look like. |
| | Gregory Brazeal, Reconstructing the Department of Justice Office for Civil Rights | 120 |
| | Commentator: Fanna Gamal |
| | Congress should pass a Fair Policing Act authorizing the DOJ’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to investigate and address individual complaints of police abuses, including Fourth Amendment violations, modeled on the Education Department’s OCR. |
| | Michael Beauvais, Adolescent Privacy | 122 |
| | Commentator: Chris Conley |
| | This paper develops (1) a conception of adolescent informational privacy and (2) analyzes the nature and justification of privacy violations by an adolescent’s guardian(s). |
| | Woodrow Hartzog & Daniel Solove, Privacy as Contract? | 125 |
| | Commentator: Lindsey Barrett |
| | Are privacy notices contracts? Should they be? The verdict is out on the first question, but applying contract law to privacy notices would be terrible for consumer privacy. |
| | Jae June Lee & Daniel Susser, How To Adopt a PET: Privacy-Enhancing Technologies as Sites of Power | 124 |
| | Commentator: Mateusz Grochowski |
| | Adopting PETs raises questions that are often only answered implicitly but which significantly shape their real effects. Surfacing these questions, we argue that absent concerted effort they tend to be resolved in ways that serve and entrench power. |
| | Natalie Ram & Jessica L. Roberts, Surveilling the Sewer in the Service of State Suppression | 213 |
| | Commentator: Christopher Morten |
| | Wastewater monitoring has grown dramatically since the Covid-19 pandemic. Emerging federal and state efforts now threaten to repurpose it to police disfavored conduct. Safeguards are needed to prevent this misuse of an important public health tool. |
| | Yunsieg Kim, Incognito Consumer Harm | 214 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Clovia Hamilton |
| | Consumer harm—especially in data privacy—is increasingly designed to be invisible, but the legal system requires victims to notice. |
| | Stav Zeitouni, Post-Privacy Privacy Law | 216 |
| | Commentator: Ari Ezra Waldman |
| | Privacy law as a discipline lacks a theory of failure or collapse. This article offers a speculative space to engage with questions such as: if we were living in a post-privacy works, how would we know? What scholarship & actions would we undertake? |
| | Tammy Katsabian & Michal Masoubi-Steinberg, Opaque by Design: Informational Dominance, Algorithmic Control, and Workplace Rights | 335 |
| | Commentator: Salome Viljoen |
| | This paper argues that algorithmic control operates as rule-making power: platforms’ end-to-end visibility and worker opacity undermine labor rights enforcement, regardless of status. |
| | Chengyuan Liang, Yan Shvartzshnaider, & Kean Birch, Governing Generative AI Use in Universities: A Comparative Study of Policies in the United States, Canada, and China | 203 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Simon Sun |
| | We compare how 101 top universities in North America and Greater China translate privacy and other legal-technical constraints into genAI governance rules on tool access, data use, and accountability. |
| 12:15 – 1:45 PM | LUNCH & PLSC AWARDS, Ari Waldman – Indiana Memorial Union Alumni Hall |
|---|
| 1:45 – 3:00 PM | SESSION 7 |
|---|
| | Author/Title | Room |
|---|
| | Quinn Yeargain, The “Reasonable” Search Under State Constitutions | 120 |
| | Commentator: Christopher Slobogin |
| | As federal doctrine, Katz’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” test hardly ever involves interactions with other rights. I argue that the more specific rights of state constitutions can and should inform each constitution’s expectation of privacy. |
| | Amanda Parsons, The Expressive Function of Data Taxes | 122 |
| | Commentator: Andrew Selbst |
| | This paper explores the socio-political implications of data taxes, including their potential to expose the exploitative nature of the data economy while simultaneously lending government legitimacy to data-collecting companies. |
| | Jeff Vagle, The Tech Ideology | 121 |
| | Commentator: Katherine Strandburg |
| | This is a book project that identifies and describes the Tech Ideology, a set of ideas that has emerged with the technology industry’s ascent, embracing authoritarian goals, and threatening our political, economic, social, and legal institutions. |
| | François Hublet & Jakob Merane, Privacy Backsliding | 214 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Angie Raymond |
| | We present a conceptual and empirical framework for evaluating regressions in privacy rights, termed “privacy backsliding.” We apply our framework to the EU’s Digital Omnibus, revealing how some of the amendments it contains may trigger backsliding. |
| | Fanna Gamal, What’s in a Name? Equality Law, Language, and Technology | 125 |
| | Commentator: Angel Diaz |
| | The paper argues that the imposition of language and meaning on technology conditions the possibility for unique modes of legal action concerning human equality. Language makes data driven methods of organizing human difference legally possible. |
| | Kamrul Faisal, When Consent Fails: Vulnerability and Institutional Responsibility in AI-Driven Public Decision-Making | 213 |
| | Commentator: Kerry Sheehan |
| | This paper argues that in AI-driven public decision-making, consent no longer meaningfully protects individuals, requiring a shift toward vulnerability-centered institutional responsibility. |
| | Tammi Etheridge, Oversight for Sale: The Pain Brokers and the Market for Accountability | 124 |
| | Commentator: Kaitlyn Rentala |
| | This paper argues that when public oversight breaks down, accountability does not disappear so much as it shifts into private hands, where it is managed and monetized rather than carried out through the usual public channels. |
| | Sarah Radway, Lu Xian, Gretchen Krueger, Zoe Robert, Suvi Lama, Tomi Idowu, Eleanor Birrell, Daniel Votipka, & James Mickens, Policy Red Teaming: A Framework For Evaluating Technology Law and Policy | 216 |
| | Commentator: Cobun Zweifel-Keegan |
| | In cybersecurity, red teamers identify weaknesses in human and technical systems to strengthen defenses against attackers. We seek to migrate this concept to the policy realm, developing methods to systematically identify weaknesses in laws/policies. |
| | Pierre-luc Déziel & Marie-Pier Jolicoeur, Privacy as Synergy : Rethinking the Relationship Between the Access to Justice and the Protection of Personal Information in Court Records | 203 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Sophie Klitgaard |
| | This paper challenges the prevailing view that privacy hinders access to justice. Drawing on empirical evidence, it argues that privacy in fact strengthens access to justice, and that the two are not in tension but mutually reinforcing. |
| | Yanzi Lin, Cheng Zhang, Madelyne Xiao, Lorrie Faith Cranor, & Sarah Scheffler, The Burdens of Proving Age: An Empirical Web Experiment About Age Verification | 335 |
| | Commentator: Alexis Shore Ingber |
| | This paper reports results from an empirical web experiment measuring users’ behavior when encountering different forms of online age verification, and insights from a follow-up survey. |
| 3:00 – 3:30 PM | BREAK |
|---|
| 3:30 – 4:45 PM | SESSION 8 |
|---|
| | Author/Title | Room |
|---|
| | Andrew Miller, An Implied Warranty of Habitability for Digital Spaces | 121 |
| | Commentator: Bill McGeveran |
| | Decades ago, the information asymmetries and power imbalances in the rental housing market inspired a radical new doctrine: an implied warranty of habitability. This model offers useful lessons for digital contexts plagued by the same pathologies. |
| | Mimee Xu & Nofar Shemla Kadosh, Privacy of the Mind | 120 |
| | Commentator: David Sella-Villa |
| | People use AI chatbots to process inner emotions; this new externalization invites a rethinking of privacy in the AI era to specifically protect the mind. Engaging with technical design, we argue that the law should recognize “privacy of the mind”. |
| | João Marinotti, Terms of Sovereignty | 122 |
| | Commentator: Caleb Yong |
| | Numerus Clausus limits allowable property forms, but tech companies have bypassed this to gain unprecedented in rem power converting boilerplate into private legislation. Voiding unauthorized property empowers courts to protect democratic legitimacy. |
| | Chinmayi Arun, Epistemic Intrusion and Cognitive Liberty | 124 |
| | Commentator: Perla Khattar |
| | This paper discusses why and how digital platforms are epistemically intrusive, interfering with cognitive liberty. It argues for a qualified right against epistemic intrusion. |
| | Megan Iorio & Tom McBrien, Operationalizing the Moderator’s Dilemma: How the Ninth Circuit Interprets Section 230 to Protect Free Speech and Allow for Tech Accountability | 125 |
| | Commentator: Hannah Bloch-Wehba |
| | The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Section 230 balances speech and accountability, yet has not been systematically studied. This article describes the Ninth Circuit’s test and proposes how it can be used to clarify and modernize Section 230. |
| | Tammi S. Etheridge, Shaowen Bardzell, Shellye Suttles, & Heidi Biggs, Compliance as Data Work | 213 |
| | Commentator: Adrienne Fowler |
| | This Article argues that administrative law must recognize data labor as labor and proposes equity-focused reforms to better align digital compliance with the goals of participation, accountability, and inclusion. |
| | Hsuan Yu Liu, Bridging the Health-Data Divide: Fiduciary Loyalty, Restriction Rights, and the Health Data Trust Model | 214 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Mark Verstraete |
| | Why does HIPAA protect your genetic data at a hospital but not at 23andMe? This paper proposes a Health Data Trust Model that extends fiduciary loyalty beyond clinical walls while navigating First Amendment constraints. |
| | Gwen Shaffer, An Examination of the Potential for Cities to Create de facto Data Privacy Law Through Vendor Contracts | 216 |
| | Commentator: Carolyn Krol |
| | This study explores the potential for cities to create de facto privacy policies through contract law language—ultimately wielding collective bargaining power with civic technology vendors. |
| | Patrick K. Lin, The Price is Wrong: Prohibiting Surveillance Pricing | 335 |
| | Commentator: Emma Lurie |
| | Prohibiting surveillance pricing requires addressing its root problems, such as data collection and information asymmetry. This paper proposes legislative solutions beyond notice and consent and considers potential legal challenges from industry. |
| | Tomohiro Otohanshi, Privacy as Stability | 203 & Zoom |
| | Commentator: Emily McReynolds |
| | This Article addresses problems with information-subject-centered and social-dimension-centered privacy theories by reconceiving privacy as stability—a condition in which no party has reasonable grounds to reject the handling of personal information. |
| 4:45 – 5:00 PM | CLOSING REMARKS – DeLaney Moot Court Room (123) |
|---|
