Christopher Hoofnagle’s and co-author’s report cited by Los Angeles Times, Oct. 19, 2016
The problem, Perzanowski and Hoofnagle observe, is that most consumers aren’t aware that they’re buying conditional access. They’re flagrantly misled by the terms “Buy” and “Own.”
Christopher Hoofnagle and Aaron Perzanowki ‘06 paper cited by Quartz, Sept. 28, 2016
When Perzanowski and Hoofnagle’s tested a version of the Media Shop that replaced the “Buy now” button with a “License now” button study participants more accurately understood their rights. Additionally, about half of all shoppers were willing to pay more to acquire a digital copy that explicitly came with traditional ownership rights, such as the right to resell.
Chris Hoofnagle quoted by USA Today, August 26, 2016
“We are at this place because of law enforcement frustration with access to data in investigations. And so we are going to continue to see law enforcement agencies, even from legitimate democratic states, buying ‘hacking tools’ so that crimes that occur within their own borders can be investigated,” said Chris Hoofnagle.
Christopher Hoofnagle quoted by IEEE Spectrum, August 23, 2016
“It’s not so much that I would invest a lot of confidence in the idea that there were X number of trackers on any given site,” Hoofnagle says of the University of Washington team’s results. “Rather, it’s the trend that’s important.”
Christopher Hoofnagle quoted by Los Angeles Times, August 9, 2016
“What Comcast is saying is somewhat akin to the water authority offering a discount for less purified water,” Hoofnagle said. “It is time to conceive of broadband as a utility, one that needs to satisfy basic standards for quality, which include freedom from unwarranted surveillance.”
Christopher Hoofnagle and Paul Schwartz quoted in The Guardian, July 19, 2016
“California is an ‘all-party consent’ wiretapping state. What that means is, even on things like a conference call, before you record it, you’re supposed to announce to everyone, ‘I’m going to record this call,’” said Chris Hoofnagle. … “There’s civil and criminal liability.”
Paul Schwartz … said Swift could also bring a “tort claim” alleging “public disclosure of private facts.”
Christopher Hoofnagle quoted in Mother Jones, May 26, 2016
“Privacy law in the U.S. is technology- and context-dependent,” Hoofnagle said. “As an example, the medical information you relay to your physician is very highly protected, but if you go to a medical website and search for ‘HIV’ or ‘abortion,’ that information is not protected at all.”
Christopher Hoofnagle interviewed by Rewire, May 25, 2016
“The reality of this stuff is that no one’s asking what marketers will do with their information when they click, ‘I Agree,’ when an app asks if it can use their location,” Hoofnagle said. “If one consents to that tracking, and consents for it to be used for advertising purposes, that’s pretty much the end of the story.”
Christopher Hoofnagle quoted by Los Angeles Times, May 13, 2016
“Language like ‘buy now’ confuses the contexts of offline and online purchasing,” Hoofnagle said.
Christopher Jay Hoofnagle quoted by The Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2016
“Google could use information it gleans from the messages for its own purposes – purposes it does not have to disclose to us,” Hoofnagle said. “In effect, Google could act as an intelligence agency, deeply mining relationships and ideas among groups of people,” such as new inventions students and staff at Berkeley are developing.