Prompt After reading your selected article, address the following critical elements: I. Analyze the issues within the article related to privacy. II. Describe the regulations or laws within the article that play a role in the protection of privacy. III. Explain your opinions on the conclusion of the article. Consider these questions:

Is the conclusion comprehensive?

Do you agree with the conclusion?

Are there areas that could be improved upon?

Design configures our relationship with a space, whether offline or online. In particular, the design of built online environments can constrain our ability to understand and respond to websites' data use practices or it can enhance agency by giving us control over information. This Article is the first comprehensive theoretical and empirical approach to the design of privacy policies. Privacy policies today do not convey information in a way understandable to most internet users. This is because they are created without the needs of real people in mind. They are written by lawyers and for lawyers, and they ignore the way most of us make disclosure decisions online. They also ignore the effects of design, aesthetics, and presentation on our decision-making. This Article argues that in addition to focusing on content, privacy regulators must also consider the ways that privacy policy design-the artistic and structural choices that frame and present a company's privacy terms to the public-can manipulate or coerce users into making risky privacy choices. I present * Associate Professor of Law; Director, Innovation Center for Law and Technology, New York Law School; Affiliate Scholar, Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy. Ph.D., Columbia University; J.D., Harvard Law School. Versions of this paper were workshopped or presented at the Sixth Annual Internet Law Works-in-Progress Conference on March 5, 2016, as part of Whittier Law School's Distinguished Speaker on Privacy Law lecture on March 17, 2016, at the New York Law School Faculty Colloquium on April 12, 2016, and at the Ninth Annual Privacy Law Scholars Conference on June 2, 2016. Special thanks go to Alessandro Acquisti, Danielle Citron, Julie Cohen, Joshua Fairfield, Woodrow Hartzog, Chris Hoofnagle, Bill McGeveren, and Dan Solove. I would also like to thank all conference and symposia participants for their helpful comments, particularly David Ardia, Tamara Belinfanti, Jody Blanke, Robert Blecker, Jill Bronfman, Ignacio Cofone, Mary Culnan, Stacey-Ann Elvy, Matt Hintze, Bill LaPiana, Art Leonard, Rebecca Lipman, Howard Meyers, Joel Reidenberg, Betsy Rosenblatt, Ira Rubinstein, Ross Sandler, Jacob Sherkow, Heather Shoenberger, David Spatt, Berin Szoka, Ann Thomas, Debra Waldman, and Andrew Woods. The New York Law School students participating in the Data Privacy Project contributed greatly to this project: Yusef Abutouq, Ashley Babrisky, Catherine Ball, Emily Holt, Jerry Jakubovic, Ashley Malisa, April Pryatt, Ke Wei, Karyn Wilson, and Anna Zabotina. MICHELE GILMAN AND REBECCA GREEN ABSTRACT We live in an age of unprecedented surveillance, enhanced by modern technology, prompting some to suggest that privacy is dead. Previous scholarship suggests that no subset of the population feels this phenomenon more than marginalized communities. Those who rely on public benefits, for example, must turn over personal information and submit to government surveillance far more routinely than wealthier citizens who enjoy greater opportunity to protect their privacy and the ready funds to secure it. This article illuminates the other end of the spectrum, arguing that many individuals who may value goviernment and nonprofit services and legal protections fail to enjoy these benefits because they reside in a "surveillance gap." These people include undocumented immigrants, day laborers, homeless persons, and people with felony conviction histories suffering collateral consequences of their convictions. Members of these groups often remain outside of the mainstream data flows and institutional attachments necessary to flourish in American society. The harms that surveillance gap residents experience can be severe, such as physical and mental health injuries and lack of economic stability, as well as data marginalization and resulting invisibility to policymakers. In short, having too much privacy can be as injurious as having too little. The sources of the surveillance gap range from attempts to contain and control marginalized groups to data silos to economic exploitation. This article explores the boundaries of the surveillance gap, evaluates how this emerging concept fits within existing privacy paradigms and theoretical frameworks, and suggests possible solutions to enhance the autonomy and dignity of marginalized people within the surveillance gap. Venable Professor of Law and Director, Clinical Legal Education, University of Baltimore School of Law. For their helpful feedback, the authors wish to thank the participants at the Privacy Law Scholars Workshop at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law in 2017, including danah boyd, Matt Cagle, Danielle Citron, Gautum Hans, Anna Lauren Hoffman, Margaret Hu, Sarah Igo, Mary Madden, Aaron Massey, Charles Raab, Andrew Selbst, and Luke Stark. We also thank Laura Heymann. Professor of Practice; Co-Director of the Election Law Program, William \& Mary Law School. 253 Imaged with Permission of N.Y.U. Review of Law \& Social Change PRIVACY AND CYBERSECURITY LESSONS AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE INTERNET OF THINGS AND POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERAS PETER SWIRE \& JESSE WOO Prepared for the North Carolina Law Review symposium on police body-worn cameras ("BWCs"), this Article shows that BWCs can be conceptualized as an example of the Internet of Things ("Io T"). By combining the previously separate literatures on BWCs and IoT, this Article shows how insights from each literature apply to the other. Part I adopts the IoT definition of (1) a sensor connected to the Internet that (2) stores and/or processes data remotely, typically in the cloud. Applied to BWCs, the camera is a sensor, and the video footage and related data are stored outside of the original camera, often in the cloud. Building on this equivalence of BWCs and IoT, Part II examines lessons from the substantial IoT literature for BWC privacy and cybersecurity. Part II systematically examines leading industry standards and Federal Trade Commission guidance that could be used to develop applicable criteria for good practice for BWCs. Analysis of this literature suggests three themes for operationalizing these best practices. First, police departments can and should learn from the IoT literature to improve privacy and cybersecurity for BWCs. Second, police departments should use their bargaining power to demand security and privacy best * (1) 2018 Peter Swire \& Jesse Woo. ** Holder Chair of Law and Ethics, Georgia Institute of Technology Scheller College of Business. For comments on earlier versions of this Article, the authors thank DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo and participants at the North Carolina Law Review symposium on police body-worn cameras. General research support was provided by the Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business, the Georgia Tech Institute for Information Security and Privacy, and the Hewlett Foundation. *** At the time of writing this Article, Jesse Woo was a research associate faculty member at the Georgia Institute of Technology Scheller College of Business. J.D., University of Washington