Mission Statement
The Privacy Law Scholars Conference (“PLSC”) promotes scholarship in privacy, broadly defined, by providing workshop sessions and academic dialogue open to scholars in all disciplines from around the world. At PLSC’s core is work related to privacy law, including in the humanities and social sciences, computer and data science, and other fields.
Code of Conduct
The Privacy Law Scholars Conference (PLSC) is committed to creating an inclusive, safe, and positive environment for all participants, and a welcoming environment for the free discussion of ideas.
As members of the PLSC community, we are all responsible for maintaining the highest ethical standards in our community and our professions, and for complying with all relevant laws and regulations. All members of the PLSC community should strive to treat people with dignity, decency, and respect, so that all individuals can achieve their academic and professional aspirations free from discrimination, harassment, intimidation, hostility, and related retaliation. In particular, we do not tolerate harassment of participants, whether attendees, guests, or PLSC staff, in any form, whether sexual harassment or other kinds.
This Code of Conduct is not a list of rules. It is a statement of the ethical and legal standards we may use as the basis for our actions and decisions, and that in some cases may trigger enforcement proceedings by event organizers, host institutions, or law enforcement. Participants and stakeholders of the PLSC community are expected to understand and abide by this Code of Conduct and to integrate these standards into their conference activities, including in all event venues, both virtual and in-person, and at event-related social activities.
Our Shared Norms and Values
This Code of Conduct outlines our expectations with regards to shared values and participant behavior at PLSC. We hope that this policy will promote values of academic rigor, scholarly creativity, professionalism, dignity, decency, and respect, and will enable each of us to contribute to a safe and inclusive shared space.
As a community of privacy scholars, PLSC commits to:
Supporting scholarly research in privacy, broadly defined, and encouraging academic rigor and engagement with existing literature in the privacy field.
Assisting participants in developing their scholarship and academic careers.
Bringing together present and future scholars across disciplines, across countries and regions, and across theoretical and methodological traditions.
Building connections between and among junior and senior scholars, practitioners, advocates, and policymakers in the privacy field.
Actively promoting a diverse and inclusive scholarly community open to all and expressly welcoming of all races, ethnicities, nationalities, genders, sexual orientations, gender identities, disability statuses, and religions.
Supporting the work of scholars who identify as members of communities historically marginalized in academia.
Striving to learn from and respect the people affected by the systems we study.
We are strongly committed to making PLSC an equitable and inclusive space. This includes expanding the diversity and inclusion efforts of previous years as well as listening and responding to feedback on past PLSC conferences.
The following behavior is contrary to the values, norms, and ideals of our shared community, subverts our mission and core values, and diminishes the dignity and integrity of all parties. This list of examples is not intended to be comprehensive; other similar behavior may also depart from our community norms. The below behavior may additionally constitute harassment, protected-class discrimination, or otherwise banned or illegal conduct under the policies of host institutions or criminal law.
- Disparaging verbal comments including epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, and discriminatory remarks, based on race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, or other similar characteristics;
- Bullying, including conduct that is threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, or deliberately sabotages work, and any related retaliation;
- Deliberate “outing” of any aspect of a person’s identity without their consent;
- Unwelcome sexual attention, including innuendoes, suggestive comments, sexual propositions, lewd remarks and obscene gestures, and requests for sexual favors, and repeated and unwelcome requests for dates;
- Threats of violence or incitement of violence, including encouraging a person to commit suicide or to engage in self-harm;
- Intimidation or silencing, including sustained and deliberate disruption of discussion.
Harassment
Harassment includes verbal, written, or physical conduct that is designed to threaten, intimidate, silence, or coerce; or that unreasonably interferes with an individual’s academic or work performance; or that creates an intimidating or hostile academic or work environment. Host institutions and state penal codes define harassment in a variety of ways.
Examples of harassment include: unwelcome sexual attention; inappropriate physical contact; stalking; deliberate intimidation; and retaliation for harassment claims. Harassment may also include many of the examples listed above under Our Shared Norms and Values.
Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately. Event organizers may take any action to maintain a welcoming environment for all participants, including warning the offender, expelling the offender from the event with no refund, and banning the participant from any future PLSC events. Event organizers may contact venue security, local law enforcement, or local support services, which may trigger further enforcement proceedings.
Event participants who believe that they have been improperly accused may be given an opportunity to present their side of the story, usually before a decision on a further course of action, except in the case of egregious harassment. Event organizers will endeavor to be fair in deciding a further course of action, but reserve the discretion to expel individuals from events regardless of any disputed facts.
If you are being harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other concerns, please report it immediately. You can report it to a designated Event Monitor, which will be designated at the time of the event, or to info@privacyscholars.org. Please be aware that under some host university policies, a mandatory reporting requirement may be triggered.
This is a Living Document
This Code is a living document. PLSC event organizers intend for these policies to meet the needs of our constituents to have positive experiences at our events and in our online community spaces, and we welcome comments and suggestions from the community. Please contact feedback@privacyscholars.org if you would like to provide feedback.
Sponsorship Statement
The Privacy Law Scholars Conference (PLSC) has always wrestled with the risks involved with corporate sponsorship. Two high level considerations influence our thinking about sponsorship. First, PLSC is designed to be multidisciplinary in more than one sense. It is an academic event first and foremost, but it is also designed to bring academic privacy scholars together with practitioners from a variety of backgrounds and to subject their work to rigorous interrogation from a corresponding variety of perspectives. We see corporate participation, along with participation by government and NGO attorneys, as a strength of PLSC that enriches both the dialogue and the ultimate output. Second, PLSC is designed as an entry point for junior and unfunded scholars. Those scholars attend at no cost, with their participation subsidized by others’ fees and by corporate sponsorship.
It is our policy only to accept sponsors that agree to exert no influence or input on the substance of the program. Corporate sponsors of PLSC receive a certain number of invitations for their employees to attend the conference, and they are named in the program and publicity materials as supporters, but they receive nothing else—no slots on the program, no program committee membership, no influence or input on paper selection, and no influence on paper awards. Our program committee makes all paper acceptance decisions (with the co-chairs), and all paper award decisions (without the votes of the co-chairs). Those wishing to present their work are required to disclose their sources of funding for the project and, if applicable, the larger work stream, and the program committee can and does reject submissions for apparent conflict of interest. For purposes of transparency, we always publish the names of our sponsors. We think that the diverse, high-quality, and often highly critical scholarship that has emerged from PLSC is the best evidence of PLSC’s independence.
Signed October 2018
Current Leadership
PLSC Program & Planning Committee
Gloria Gonzalez Fuster, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Alexis Shore Ingber, Syracuse University
Meg Leta Jones, Georgetown University
Karen Levy, Cornell University
Paul Ohm, Georgetown University Law Center
Gianclaudio Malgieri, Leiden University
Ngozi Okidegbe, Boston University School of Law
Neil Richards, Washington University School of Law
Andrew Selbst, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
Daniel Susser, Cornell University
Jeffrey Vagle, Georgia State University College of Law
Salome Viljoen, University of Michigan Law School
Ari Ezra Waldman, University of California, Irvine School of Law (Chair)
Kate Weisburd, University of California San Francisco Law (Treasurer)
PLSC Junior Scholars Council
David Sella-Villa, Joseph F. Rice School of Law, University of South Carolina
Mehtab Khan, Cleveland State University College of Law
Marc Canellas, Maryland Office of the Public Defender
Ayelet Gordon-Tapiero, Hebrew University
Privacy Law Scholars Foundation
Board of Directors
Ari Ezra Waldman, University of California, Irvine School of Law, President
Kate Weisburd, University of California San Francisco Law, Treasurer
Danielle Keats Citron, University of Virginia School of Law
Woodrow Hartzog, Boston University School of Law
Paul Ohm, Georgetown University Law Center
Kirsten Martin, Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University