Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].
There are many aphorisms to describe the dangers of maximalist demands: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush; don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good; and a half a loaf is better than none. These sayings apply to the arguments made by well-intentioned privacy advocates who object to various forms of data collection and usage by individuals, governments, and businesses. Gus Hurwitz and Jamil Jaffer explore this theme in their thought-provoking essay,
Modern Privacy Advocacy: An Approach at War with Privacy Itself?, which explains that such orthodoxy in the defense of privacy, a term that is ill-defined, may undermine the very value it tries to serve.
This is the
first of a series of essays that will explore privacy and attendant regulations, existing and proposed. Please watch this space for more to come.
