I’ll be presenting my latest draft paper, now entitled Regulating Mass Surveillance as Privacy Pollution: Learning from Environmental Impact Statements at a faculty workshop at the American University Washington College of Law at lunch time on Friday. So I’m off to DC early Thursday morning.
This will likely be my last chance to learn what I may need to do to punch up the paper before I send it out to law reviews, which I plan to do very soon. I’ll post a link to a draft of it here once I’ve incorporated the next round of comments.
As far as sending papers to law reviews is concerned, I’ve actually been very spoiled: almost all my work for the past decade has been book chapters or conference papers, so I have not had to send them out en mass to law reviews the way most law professors do most of the time. In fact, the last time I sent a paper out to law reviews seems to be … in 2003. (Has it really been that long?) And in that case, I was even luckier, as that paper was picked up by the Harvard Law Review.
I really think this is the best paper I’ve written in many years; that of course doesn’t necessarily tell one much about where it will end up. It isn’t short (23,000 words and counting), which is unfashionable. And I think it has two ideas, which could make it unwieldy. The political feasibility of what I propose is certainly open to question. But I think it might be somewhat original.
After this, there’s another paper in the pipeline on a very different topic. It’s good to think that I’m over the productivity hiccup caused by my aortic dissection almost exactly four years ago. Coincidentally, I had been scheduled to fly to DC on Feb. 12, 2010, the day I collapsed, but the conference I was planning to attend was snowed out. Had I gone, my aorta likely would have burst in the air, or I would have likely not gone to a hospital quickly enough had it happened in DC. In either scenario, I’d be dead as once it bursts you have less than an hour to be treated or it’s curtains.
So I guess I’m hoping it is the 2003 history, and not the 2010 history, that repeats itself.
Glad you’re still with us, you’re one of the good ones (lawyers) !
The privacy paper you posted a while back was good, though I think there’s a need for more disambiguation between the terms “privacy” and “anonymity.” Many users of TOR for example seem to conflate the two concepts, which is unfortunate, since TOR requires discipline to really be an effective tool.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Glad you’re still with us, you’re one of the good ones (lawyers) !
The privacy paper you posted a while back was good, though I think there’s a need for more disambiguation between the terms “privacy” and “anonymity.” Many users of TOR for example seem to conflate the two concepts, which is unfortunate, since TOR requires discipline to really be an effective tool.