000041991 000__ 02527cam\a22002535i\4500 000041991 001__ 41991 000041991 003__ SzGeWIPO 000041991 005__ 20240708145855.0 000041991 008__ 200622s2018\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d 000041991 022__ $$a0736-7694 000041991 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda 000041991 041__ $$aeng 000041991 1001_ $$aThomas, Casey 000041991 24503 $$aRide Oversharing :$$bPrivacy Regulation within the Gig Economy 000041991 264_1 $$a[New York City, New York] :$$bYeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,$$c2018. 000041991 300__ $$a30 pages 000041991 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent 000041991 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia 000041991 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier 000041991 520__ $$aThis Note argues that the current regulatory scheme for privacy inadequately protects consumers in the gig economy. While privacy is considered a fundamental human right in Europe, American law has neglected the right to privacy. This has become increasingly important as digitization continues into the sharing economy system. This Note proposes that the federal government, through the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), establish a regulatory framework that borrows standards from the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)’s 2016 privacy rulesfor broadband Internet service providers (“ISPs”), the California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”), and Regulation (EU) 2016/679. This would act as a model scheme for states to implement stronger privacy standards for companies. For example, states could require warrants for governmental access to data. This would, in turn, deter gig economy platforms from intruding upon consumer privacy and keeping data for any purpose except for essential business use. Specifically, Part I of this Note begins by outlining the historical background of privacy law, with emphasis on technological influence on the law. Part II discusses the current state of the sharing economy’s self-regulation regarding privacy. Part III delves into issues surrounding governmental access to data and its circumvention of Fourth Amendment protection, and Part IV suggests that the United States federal government supplement the current system with a broad, regulatory framework akin to the recently repealed FCC privacy rules. Lastly, this Note in Part V discusses alternative solutions, including congressional and local regulation. 000041991 525__ $$aPublished in : Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law, vol. 36, no. 1 (2018) 000041991 650_0 $$aPrivacy 000041991 650_0 $$aUber 000041991 650_0 $$aFourth Amendment 000041991 85641 $$uhttp://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/THOMAS_NOTE.pdf$$yView this resource 000041991 904__ $$aJournal article 000041991 980__ $$aBIB