Let's not kill all the privacy laws (and lawyers)

Christopher Kuner, Fred H Cate, Christopher Millard, Dan Jerker B Svantesson

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearch

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

One of the most famous quotes from Shakespeare is ‘The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers’.1 Judging by comments one reads and hears, this sentiment is shared by many who are frustrated with the limitations of data protection and privacy law. It is often stated that lawyers have made privacy law and regulation too bureaucratic, and that they are responsible for much of the unintelligible verbiage (such as dense privacy policies) that annoy and confuse individuals. The law also stands accused of constantly falling behind technological developments; of using terminology that is overly bureaucratic and formalistic (a favourite example is the use of the term ‘data subject’, rather than the more understandable ‘individual’, in Article 2 of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46); and of providing ineffective protection for privacy as compared to technological solutions
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)209-210
Number of pages2
JournalInternational Data Privacy Law
Volume1
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

lawyer
privacy
data protection
accused
technical development
technical language
EU
regulation

Cite this

Kuner, Christopher ; Cate, Fred H ; Millard, Christopher ; Svantesson, Dan Jerker B. / Let's not kill all the privacy laws (and lawyers). In: International Data Privacy Law. 2011 ; Vol. 1, No. 1. pp. 209-210.
@article{ddbba302b50e48848eeeebe1ccd6ef94,
title = "Let's not kill all the privacy laws (and lawyers)",
abstract = "One of the most famous quotes from Shakespeare is ‘The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers’.1 Judging by comments one reads and hears, this sentiment is shared by many who are frustrated with the limitations of data protection and privacy law. It is often stated that lawyers have made privacy law and regulation too bureaucratic, and that they are responsible for much of the unintelligible verbiage (such as dense privacy policies) that annoy and confuse individuals. The law also stands accused of constantly falling behind technological developments; of using terminology that is overly bureaucratic and formalistic (a favourite example is the use of the term ‘data subject’, rather than the more understandable ‘individual’, in Article 2 of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46); and of providing ineffective protection for privacy as compared to technological solutions",
author = "Christopher Kuner and Cate, {Fred H} and Christopher Millard and Svantesson, {Dan Jerker B}",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1093/idpl/ipr016",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "209--210",
journal = "International Data Privacy Law",
issn = "2044-3994",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

Let's not kill all the privacy laws (and lawyers). / Kuner, Christopher; Cate, Fred H; Millard, Christopher; Svantesson, Dan Jerker B.

In: International Data Privacy Law, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2011, p. 209-210.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearch

TY - JOUR

T1 - Let's not kill all the privacy laws (and lawyers)

AU - Kuner, Christopher

AU - Cate, Fred H

AU - Millard, Christopher

AU - Svantesson, Dan Jerker B

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - One of the most famous quotes from Shakespeare is ‘The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers’.1 Judging by comments one reads and hears, this sentiment is shared by many who are frustrated with the limitations of data protection and privacy law. It is often stated that lawyers have made privacy law and regulation too bureaucratic, and that they are responsible for much of the unintelligible verbiage (such as dense privacy policies) that annoy and confuse individuals. The law also stands accused of constantly falling behind technological developments; of using terminology that is overly bureaucratic and formalistic (a favourite example is the use of the term ‘data subject’, rather than the more understandable ‘individual’, in Article 2 of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46); and of providing ineffective protection for privacy as compared to technological solutions

AB - One of the most famous quotes from Shakespeare is ‘The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers’.1 Judging by comments one reads and hears, this sentiment is shared by many who are frustrated with the limitations of data protection and privacy law. It is often stated that lawyers have made privacy law and regulation too bureaucratic, and that they are responsible for much of the unintelligible verbiage (such as dense privacy policies) that annoy and confuse individuals. The law also stands accused of constantly falling behind technological developments; of using terminology that is overly bureaucratic and formalistic (a favourite example is the use of the term ‘data subject’, rather than the more understandable ‘individual’, in Article 2 of the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46); and of providing ineffective protection for privacy as compared to technological solutions

U2 - 10.1093/idpl/ipr016

DO - 10.1093/idpl/ipr016

M3 - Editorial

VL - 1

SP - 209

EP - 210

JO - International Data Privacy Law

JF - International Data Privacy Law

SN - 2044-3994

IS - 1

ER -