{"id":58816,"date":"2019-05-06T08:00:16","date_gmt":"2019-05-06T12:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bu.edu\/law\/?p=58816"},"modified":"2025-07-14T12:32:50","modified_gmt":"2025-07-14T16:32:50","slug":"invasive-big-data-or-harmless-big-data","status":"publish","type":"bu-article","link":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/law\/record\/articles\/2019\/invasive-big-data-or-harmless-big-data\/","title":{"rendered":"Invasive Big Data or Harmless Big Data"},"content":{"rendered":"

Technology Law Clinic students explain the difference in an amicus curiae<\/em> brief to the SJC.<\/h2>\n
\"Technology
Technology Law Clinic students Patrick Wilson (\u201920), Ally Faustin (\u201920), Zach Sisko (\u201919), and Lyndsey Wajert (\u201919), outside of the John Adams Courthouse.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

When Technology Law Clinic*<\/a>\u00a0director Andy Sellars<\/strong> emailed students about the opportunity to work on an amicus curiae<\/em> brief for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Zach Sisko (\u201919) immediately signed up. In addition to research and drafting experience, he wanted the chance to make a \u201ctangible impact\u201d on a subject matter he is passionate about: public records law.<\/p>\n

The case, Boston Globe Media Partners LLC v. Department of Public Health<\/em>, involves a request by the Boston Globe<\/em> for an electronic copy of 4.6 million records containing Massachusetts birth and marriage information held by the Department of Public Health (DPH). The DPH denied the request, arguing that the disclosure of a data set this large would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy and exempt under provisions in the Massachusetts Public Records Law.<\/p>\n

The Technology Law Clinic planned to submit an amicus brief on behalf of the editorial staff of The Tech<\/em>, the MIT student newspaper, together with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Metro Corp., the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, New England First Amendment Coalition, the New England Newspaper Press Association, the New York Times<\/em> Company, North of Boston Media Group, and the Daily Free Press<\/em>. Students Alexandra Faustin (\u201920), Lyndsey Wajert (\u201919), and Patrick Wilson (\u201920) joined Sisko on the clinic\u2019s team, supervised by clinic faculty Sellars and Julissa Milligan.<\/p>\n

With just four weeks to research and write the brief<\/a>\u2014and a deadline during final exam week\u2014the students kicked into high gear. The first step was deciding where to focus.<\/p>\n

\u201cAmicus briefs are unique and a type of writing that not many law students get to take on, especially in such a high-profile manner. We wanted to focus on issues that the other parties hadn\u2019t addressed and encourage the court to see what is at stake,\u201d says Wajert. \u201cThis is the first time that the SJC can really tackle an issue related to open access of records while balancing privacy concerns. We decided to address those privacy concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sisko explains that while Massachusetts has a \u201cfairly elaborate scheme\u201d with regard to what information is considered public, the laws were drafted or updated before the ability to instantly download thousands of files online. \u201cWe wanted to demystify how the current legal framework applies to big data and modern data transfer without causing privacy concerns. We wanted to show how these requests are like a wide puddle that is three-inches deep.\u201d<\/p>\n

The students made a three-part argument. Faustin explains, \u201cFirst, we maintained that the DPH failed to demonstrate that releasing this data would be a privacy harm. Second, the legislature already stated that the information requested is public. And third, we argued that the existing legal framework is robust enough to encompass concerns about big data.\u201d<\/p>\n

The students attended the oral arguments on January 10 and are currently waiting on the court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the SJC agrees with the Boston Globe<\/em>, it is a win for journalism. It is a win for access to information and freedom of information. And it\u2019s a win for the First Amendment,\u201d says Wilson.<\/p>\n

Sisko adds, \u201cThis would also be a win for transparency in government. It would be recognition that public record laws don\u2019t have to be resistant to modern data practices, but rather they can be discerning in the recognition that courts and legislatures understand the difference between invasive datasets and noninvasive datasets.\u201d<\/p>\n

Regardless of the outcome, they all agree that working on it provided valuable experience for their future legal careers.<\/p>\n

\u201cBU Law does a great job emphasizing the experiential side of learning. Having this kind of preparation for our work as lawyers is critical,\u201d says Sisko, who is planning to join Cooley LLP in Boston after graduation.<\/p>\n

Wajert notes, \u201cThis project is something I will look back on as a fantastic learning experience. After graduation, I\u2019ll be a legal fellow with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which signed our amicus brief. \u201cThis project gave me experience with First Amendment issues and highlighted my long-term interest in this area.\u201d<\/p>\n

Faustin says that the clinic gave her a \u201chuge leg up\u201d in terms of experience and understanding what is expected of a summer intern or first-year associate.<\/p>\n

Wilson agrees. \u201cThis experience was fantastic and very different from the types of things law students typically do in their first two years of school. I had the opportunity to write persuasively and make policy arguments that could have a significant impact on this state.\u201d<\/p>\n

*Formerly the Technology & Cyberlaw Clinic<\/em><\/p>\n

Reported by Meghan Laska<\/h6>\n
\n

Related News<\/h4>\n