2012 Symposium

The Privacy Paradox: Privacy and Its Conflicting Values


The Privacy Paradox

The symposium was held on February 2-3, 2012 at Stanford Law School.

About the Symposium

How should the legal system adjust to our evolving and oftentimes conflicting expectations of privacy? The symposium brought together some of the nation's foremost practitioners and academics to address the conflict between privacy and our core values.

The symposium began on the evening of Thursday, February 2 with an interactive talk on robots, drones, and the civilian uses of military technology. On Friday, we will feature panels on privacy and its conflicting values, such as the First Amendment. The symposium closed with a keynote on Friday evening.

The full Symposium Program (PDF), including speaker bios, and Essays from our Symposium Issue, are now available online.


Visit the law school contact page for driving directions, campus maps, and related information.


Thursday, February 2, 2012

6:00-6:30 PM—Registration

6:30-8:00 PM—Welcome & Drones Discussion

  • Stephen Morris, MLB Company
  • Ryan Calo, Stanford Law School, Center for Internet and Society
  • Catherine Crump, American Civil Liberties Union

8:00- 9:00 PM—Cocktail Reception (drones on display courtesy of MLB Company)

Friday, February 3, 2012

10:00 AM—Registration/Continental Breakfast

10:30 AM-12:00 PM—Health and Medical Privacy

  • Dr. Russ Altman, Stanford University Department of Bioengineering
  • Geff Brown, Microsoft
  • Deven McGraw, Center for Democracy and Technology
  • Kevin Milne, US Department of Health and Human Services—Office for Civil Rights
  • Moderator: Hank Greely, Stanford Law School

12:00-1:30 PM—Lunch Break

1:30-3:00 PM—Big Data, Politics, and Privacy

3:00-3:30 PM—Coffee Break

3:30-5:00 PM—First Amendment, Tort, and Privacy

5:15-6:15 PM—Keynote: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals


Symposium Sponsored By:

Sullivan & Cromwell

Debevoise & Plimpton

Past Symposia

2011 Symposium — The Future of Patents: Bilski and Beyond

Connect with SLR

Stanford Law Review on Twitter   Stanford Law Review on Facebook   Stanford Law Review on Google+   Stanford Law Review on Google+

SLR Mailing List

Subscribe to receive updates from the Stanford Law Review.

SLR in the News

The Atlantic mentions Keith Cunningham's article Father Time: Flexible Work Arrangements and the Law Firm's Failure of the Family.

Justice Scalia cites Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs in his concurring opinion in Glossip v. Gross.

Justice Breyer cites Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross.

Justice Kagan cites Statutory Interpretation from the Inside in her dissent in Yates v. United States.

SCOTUSBlog references Mark Rienzi's SLR Online article Substantive Due Process as a Two-Way Street.

The National Journal praises Substantive Due Process as a Two-Way Street.

The Economist references The Drone as a Privacy Catalyst.

The Green Bag lauds Toby Heytens's article Reassignment as an "exemplar of good legal writing" from 2014.

The Economist mentions Urska Velikonja's forthcoming article Public Compensation for Private Harm in the cover article of its August 30 issue.

The Economist writes a column on Stephen Bainbridge's and Todd Henderson's article Boards-R-Us.

SCOTUSBlog cites Eric Hansford's Volume 63 note Measuring the Effects of Specialization with Circuit Split Resolutions in one of its Academic Highlight blog posts.

The Atlantic and The National Journal cite Jeffrey Rosen's SLR Online article The Right to Be Forgotten.

WSJ MoneyBeat writes a column about Urska Velikonja's forthcoming article Public Compensation for Private Harm.

Education Law Prof Blog discusses Joshua Weishart's article Transcending Equality Versus Adequacy.

The D.C. Circuit cites Statutory Interpretation from the Inside in Loving v. IRS (PDF).

Constitutional Law Prof Blog discusses Toby Heytens's article Reassignment.

Justice Scalia cites Beyond DOMA: Choice of State Law in Federal Statutes in his dissent in Windsor.

The New York Times mentions The Right to Be Forgotten in an article and its 6th Floor Blog.

Slate references The Drone as a Privay Catalyst.