Paul Schwartz interviewed by The New York Times, Jan. 8, 2016
“In the E.U., data protection is a fundamental right that is in the European charter,” said Paul M. Schwartz. … The German federal constitutional court has also identified a right to “informational self-determination,” he said. Such laws are “real obstacles,” he said, adding, “Europeans really take privacy seriously.”
Paul Schwartz and Behnam Dayanim write for Daily Journal (registration required), October 22, 2014
Most of the rest of the world regulates data privacy with a different approach than the United States. The dominant global model refers to “data protection” and follows the European Union’s approach to regulation of the use of personal information. This divergence has profound implications for the cloud.
Paul Schwartz cited in Law Technology News, October 8, 2014
It’s a fair bet that when the Berkeley Center for Law Technology’s 7th Annual Privacy Lecture ended, its attendees took away some compelling insights into government surveillance cases they may be asked to argue. The lecture was moderated by Paul Schwartz, Jefferson E. Peyser professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.
Paul Schwartz writes for Privacy Perspectives, July 22, 2014
Emotions are still running high in Germany about U.S. global surveillance activities. Indeed, outside the campus of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, I passed pro-Snowden posters stuck on telephone poles. The posters featured a simple suggestion for Germany’s policy in this matter: “Asyl,” that is, an offer of asylum in Germany for Snowden.
Paul Schwartz quoted in Government Technology Magazine, June 2, 2014
The concept of privacy simply covers a lot of territory, and that’s part of the problem, said Paul Schwartz…. “It can mean everything and it can mean nothing,” he explained. “That can have some dangerous consequences.”
Paul Schwartz noted in Privacy Perspectives, March 18, 2014
I suggested Jan for the keynote slot to conference organizer and Berkeley Law Prof. Paul Schwartz, thinking him to be a “long shot.”… Prof. Schwartz’ prominence, charm, power of persuasion and German language skills, as well as Berkeley’s prestige no doubt were compelling factors.
Paul Schwartz, Deirdre Mulligan, Chris Hoofnagle quoted in Forbes TECH blog, January 6, 2014
Paul [Schwartz] explained that the state-federal dialogue has broken down because the current Congress is gridlocked. Meanwhile, California continues enacting “a tidal wave of California privacy laws.” He cautioned against waiting for a “federal Godot,” i.e., expecting Congress to reengage productively on privacy regulation.
Deirdre Mulligan … praised California’s long reputation for privacy leadership. She said regulators outside California look to California as a laboratory of experimentation, and those experiments have ripple effects across the globe.
Chris Hoofnagle … said notice-and-choice is based on rational choice theory, but consumers don’t always act rationally…. He believes consumers see the words “privacy policies” as seals, i.e., certifications of minimum protections. He favors correcting this by establishing minimum substantive legal standards for anyone who uses the term “privacy policy.”
Paul Schwartz quoted in The New York Times, January 5, 2014
“They made a pretty good facial claim that the government violated the ‘no disclosure without consent’ rule,” said Paul M. Schwartz.
Deirdre Mulligan and Paul Schwartz quoted in Bloomberg BNA , December 16, 2013
“Privacy rules don’t necessarily erode innovation. Sometimes they’re the fabric of it,” said Deirdre Mulligan, co-director of the University of California Berkeley School of Law Center for Law & Technology.
The ‘California Effect’ is how what California does ripples across the nation and the world, said Paul Schwartz…. “The California Effect is typically the first stage. It would be followed by action in D.C.,” which Schwartz said has been lacking. “The question becomes in absence of action in D.C., what should we do?” he asked. The question is whether “to act or not to act” in the world’s ninth largest economy.
Paul Schwartz co-authors article in Concurring Opinions, June 26, 2013
Numerous attempts have been made to bridge the gap between U.S. and E.U. privacy law, but a very large initial hurdle stands in the way. The two bodies of law can’t even agree on the scope of protection let alone the substance of the protections. The scope of protection of privacy laws turns on the definition of “personally identifiable information” (PII). If there is PII, privacy laws apply. If PII is absent, privacy laws do not apply.