
Information Fiduciaries in the Digital Age - dredmorbius
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/03/information-fiduciaries-in-digital-age.html
======
dredmorbius
Jack Balkan suggests that information holders be legally tasked with acting in
the interest of those whose information they hold:

 _The idea of an information fiduciary matters when the fiduciary discloses or
uses sensitive information about the beneficiary to the beneficiary 's
disadvantage without permission. First, in some cases, the government may
impose a duty of disclosure in some cases, but it generally requires a very
good reason to breach the confidence. Second, the fiduciary may not disclose
sensitive information to third parties or use the information against the
client's interest, and if this duty is breached, the client has a cause of
action in tort. Note, moreover, that this cause of action is not barred by the
First Amendment. A lawyer, doctor or accountant generally does not have a
First Amendment right to disclose sensitive information about their clients or
use that information in self-dealing even though a perfect stranger with no
professional relationship might have a First Amendment right to do so. The
fiduciary relationship creates a duty that, in this particular context, trumps
the interest in freedom of expression._

I'd run across the notion in Jonathan Zittrain's recent _New York Times_ OpEd:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/zuckerberg...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/zuckerberg-
facebook-privacy-congress.html)

He's previously developed the idea with Balkan in an item previously submitted
to HN in 2016, though without generating discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12647720](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12647720)

At _The Atlantic_ , "A Grand Bargain to Make Tech Companies Trustworthy":

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/infor...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/information-
fiduciary/502346/?single_page=true)

