Issue 3: 2017 Privacy Papers for Policymakers Award Winners

Notes from FPF

On December 12, 2017, FPF announced the winners of our 8th Annual Privacy Papers for Policymakers (PPPM) Award. This Award recognizes leading privacy scholarship that is relevant to policymakers in the United States Congress, at U.S. federal agencies, and for data protection authorities abroad.

In this special issue of the Scholarship Reporter, you will find this year’s six winning papers. From the many nominated privacy-related papers published in the last year, these six were selected by Finalist Judges, after having been first evaluated highly by a diverse team of academics, advocates, and industry privacy professionals from FPF’s Advisory Board. Finalist Judges and Reviewers agreed that these papers demonstrate a thoughtful analysis of emerging issues and propose new means of analysis that can lead to real-world policy impact, making them the “must-read” privacy scholarship today.

This year’s winning papers grapple with a range of issues critical to regulators. The papers analyze broad conceptions of how regulators, markets, and society at large consider different conceptions of privacy, prompting the reader to think critically about assumed paradigms.

Striking the balance between foundational analysis and narrower proposals, “Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Roadmap and Primer,” outlines the role of artificial intelligence in law and policy, and how relevant governance strategies should develop. “Designing Against Discrimination in Online Markets” taxonomizes design and policy strategies for diminishing discriminatory mechanisms in online platforms and “Health Information Equality” proposes mechanisms to prevent the disproportionate effects of secondary health data usage on vulnerable populations.

“The Public Information Fallacy” argues that the definition of “public information” is unsettled and hazy, meriting a more rigorous analysis of the definition in legal determinations and policy discourse. In “The Undue Influence of Surveillance Technology Companies on Policing,” the author argues that the role of surveillance technology companies must be curtailed to facilitate meaningful transparency about how that technology is used by police departments. “Transatlantic Data Privacy Law”, calls for a coalesced understanding of how privacy is conceptualized between the rights-based model in Europe and the marketplace-based model in the United States.

As always, we would love to hear your feedback on this issue. You can email us at fpf@fpf.org.

Jules Polontetsky, CEO, FPF