Privacy Revisited is a truly remarkable book. Successfully deploying an analytic approach which is both comparative and contextual is a wonderful achievement in itself, but Krotoszynski does more. He offers a framework for thinking about privacy as a global human right. In so doing, he shows that the way privacy is understood in the United States means that privacy is protected neither 'as reliably or as comprehensively' as it is in other liberal
democracies. This argument is bracing and persuasive, and it makes a singularly important contribution to scholarship and public discourse. * Austin Sarat, Associate Dean of the Faculty, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science, and Director, Mellon Project on Student-Faculty Research, Amherst College * Professor Krotoszynski provides a valuable overview of how several constitutional systems accommodate competing interests in privacy, speech, and democracy. He shows how scholarship in comparative law can help one think about one's own legal system while remaining sensitive to the different cultural and institutional settings of each nation's law. A very useful contribution. * Mark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Harvard Law School * In an increasingly globalized world, in which we carry in our pockets the ability to broadcast intimate information around the world instantaneously, the need to understand how other countries define and protect privacy has never been greater. Professor Krotoszynski's Privacy Revisited is a learned and wide-ranging lesson in how and why we remain very far from a global legal consensus on the scope and meaning of privacy. * David S. Law, Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis * It's commonplace to note that American law is exceptional in its under-protection of privacy rights in relation to the rest of the industrialized, digitized, networked world. But the nature and reasons for American "privacy exceptionalism" have rarely received sustained examination. In this careful, erudite, and insightful book, Krotoszynski explains how privacy rights vary between the US, Canada, South Africa, Britain, and continental Europe, and how that variation
maps onto different protections for freedom of expression. Digging deeply into both the legal doctrine and broader legal cultures of these societies, Krotoszynski illuminates our understanding of how different societies can protect privacy in such different ways, even as our networked economies bring
the world's legal cultures ever closer. A global information society needs interoperable privacy rules, but all too often the world's legal systems talk past each other. * Neil Richards, Professor of Law, Washington University * This is a wise book that offers a welcome dose of comparative law learning. It is indispensable reading for anyone who wants to grasp global challenges of privacy law. * James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law, Yale Law School * I loved the book because it is such a smart and dynamic engagement with comparative law's current malaise... In this wide-ranging work we see the challenges, shortcomings, and promise of [several] competing approaches to comparative law. Who among us hasn't struggled with this, the comparatist's fundamental dilemma? Too few of us are willing to live that struggle so openly and honestly as Krotoszynski. He has given us a compelling invitation to keep hammering away at
that methodological and theoretical problem. Whatever we might mean by privacy, Krotoszynski isn't going to let us mask our disciplinary challenges. * Russell Miller, Jotwell * For those seeking a lucis analysis of the development (or lack thereof) of constitutional privacy law in the jurisdictions considered ... Krotoszynski provides a comprehensive and thought-provoking overview ... Privacy Revisited is required reading for academics and practitioners looking to develop their understanding of constitutional privacy law across Western liberal democracies. * Joe Purshouse, University of East Anglia, Cambridge Law Journal *