Folks who are signed up as recommenders got a daunting email from OSCAR this past weekend. OSCAR — the Online System for Clerkship Application and Review — is the electronic clearinghouse for those applying for clerkships with federal judges. Applicants as well as recommenders submit their materials to OSCAR, which in turn distributes those materials to the judges. The system brings order and efficiency to a chaotic process.
In an email entitled, “OSCAR: New Recommendations Requested,” an electronically-generated email stated:
The email then listed roughly 200 names of clerkship applicants from around the country. Most recommenders, I imagine, quickly surmised that the email had been sent in error, and the next day the following email was sent:
No big deal — just another minor example of the fallability of electronic systems. I wonder, though, if there is a privacy issue here. The email listed over 200 names — the names, I imagine, of people who are applying for clerkships. Certainly, these applicants expected some level of disclosure. And only names were listed — not anything else. But perhaps applicants would be surprised, even concerned, that their names were released to every OSCAR recommender out there. I wonder what privacy law profs think of this. Is this a small snafu or an electronic privacy invasion? My instinct would lean toward it being a minor issue, but I’m not one of the applicants. |
Posted by Matt Bodie on July 10, 2007 at 05:08 PM
Comments
Matt:
Speaking as just one privacy law prof, I see this incident as a minimal privacy intrusion. I’m not sure the fact that you are applying for a clerkship is much of a private fact to begin with, given how many people need to know it in order to process your application and the extent to which clerkships are seen as desirable and natural ways to spend the year after law school. (The latter point would be different if this was a list of current law firm associates looking for new jobs, or going on the academic market — that is information they have more reason to keep undisclosed).
What *is* alarming about the incident is, as you say, its demonstration of “the fallibility of electronic systems.” This time the system only spat out names. But plenty of these glitches reveal a lot more. Could it have been GPAs, or the judges to whom they are applying? Digitizing and collecting personal data brings with it inherent risk of accidental privacy violations from system errors.
Posted by: William McGeveran | Jul 11, 2007 10:48:18 AM