Recommender systems are now widely deployed across multiple dimensions of the digital reality that increasingly shapes our lives. In doing so, they mould individual thoughts and actions and can affect individual and collective autonomy. In this paper we first discuss how the ubiquitous exercise of ‘soft’ power by recommender systems on individual users presents interference into individual autonomy and its legal dimensions, expressed through collective and individual self-determination, democratic values and institutions, as well as individual human rights and freedoms. We then argue that this exercise of power over individual and collective destinies necessitates regulatory action to establish an appropriate system of checks and balances on recommender systems and their creators. Utilising a bottom-up approach, we look at the fundamental aspects of a recommender system’s design and functioning that shape the impact these algorithms have on individual autonomy. On the basis of this, we identify three key areas where regulation can be targeted in order to empower users and address current power imbalances - (1) algorithmic design, (2) data protection rights, and (3) transparency and oversight. We map the key questions and options for future regulatory action in each of these domains, highlighting the decisions and competing interests that regulators will need to consider. We conclude by discussing the policy implications of this mapping of the debate and the relevance they have for the future of recommender systems regulation.
{"title":"Recommender Systems and Autonomy: A Role for Regulation of Design, Rights, and Transparency","authors":"C. Djeffal, Christina Hitrova, Eduardo Magrani","doi":"10.55496/jgdn9214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55496/jgdn9214","url":null,"abstract":"Recommender systems are now widely deployed across multiple dimensions of the digital reality that increasingly shapes our lives. In doing so, they mould individual thoughts and actions and can affect individual and collective autonomy. In this paper we first discuss how the ubiquitous exercise of ‘soft’ power by recommender systems on individual users presents interference into individual autonomy and its legal dimensions, expressed through collective and individual self-determination, democratic values and institutions, as well as individual human rights and freedoms. We then argue that this exercise of power over individual and collective destinies necessitates regulatory action to establish an appropriate system of checks and balances on recommender systems and their creators. Utilising a bottom-up approach, we look at the fundamental aspects of a recommender system’s design and functioning that shape the impact these algorithms have on individual autonomy. On the basis of this, we identify three key areas where regulation can be targeted in order to empower users and address current power imbalances - (1) algorithmic design, (2) data protection rights, and (3) transparency and oversight. We map the key questions and options for future regulatory action in each of these domains, highlighting the decisions and competing interests that regulators will need to consider. We conclude by discussing the policy implications of this mapping of the debate and the relevance they have for the future of recommender systems regulation.","PeriodicalId":106680,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115509822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the last few years, associations of domestic retailers have become vociferous opponents of Amazon’s practices in India. In response to complaints of anti-competitive conduct, the Competition Commission of India has initiated an investigation into Amazon’s anti-competitive vertical agreements in online smartphone retail. Against this backdrop, Reuters published a series of investigative reports which indicate that Amazon used internal data of third-party sellers and engaged in preferential treatment of private labels and preferred sellers. The Reuters reports join a series of other reports and studies which reveal that such conduct is pervasive across product categories. In light of this information, this paper makes two broad arguments. First, the paper argues that the scope of the competition investigation in India should be broadened beyond smartphones. The investigation should be reoriented to focus on the relationship between Amazon and its preferred sellers or retailers more broadly, rather than bifurcating the investigation along the lines of separate product categories. Second, the paper argues that the publicly-available information is sufficient to satisfy the legal test for passing an interim order. Such an interim order should prohibit Amazon from acting in the dual capacity of marketplace and seller. The necessity of the interim order has been highlighted through reference to the potentially irreparable and unquantifiable harm done to competition and consumers and the protracted nature of competition proceedings which might render the final order redundant.
在过去几年里，印度国内零售商协会已经成为亚马逊在印度做法的强烈反对者。作为对亚马逊反竞争行为投诉的回应，印度竞争委员会(Competition Commission of India)已对亚马逊在在线智能手机零售领域的反竞争垂直协议展开调查。在此背景下，路透社发表了一系列调查报告，指出亚马逊利用第三方卖家的内部数据，对自有品牌和优先卖家进行优惠待遇。路透社的报告和其他一系列报告和研究表明，这种行为在各个产品类别中都很普遍。根据这些信息，本文提出了两大论点。首先，该论文认为，印度竞争调查的范围应该扩大到智能手机之外。调查应该重新定位，更广泛地关注亚马逊与其首选卖家或零售商之间的关系，而不是沿着单独的产品类别进行调查。其次，本文认为公开信息足以满足通过临时命令的法律检验。这样的临时命令应该禁止亚马逊以市场和卖家的双重身份行事。通过提到对竞争和消费者可能造成的无法弥补和无法量化的损害以及竞争程序的旷日持久的性质可能使最终命令变得多余，强调了临时命令的必要性。
{"title":"Amazon’s Competition Investigation in India: A Case for Expansion of Investigation and Grant of Interim Relief","authors":"Madhavi Singh","doi":"10.55496/zipl6280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55496/zipl6280","url":null,"abstract":"In the last few years, associations of domestic retailers have become vociferous opponents of Amazon’s practices in India. In response to complaints of anti-competitive conduct, the Competition Commission of India has initiated an investigation into Amazon’s anti-competitive vertical agreements in online smartphone retail. Against this backdrop, Reuters published a series of investigative reports which indicate that Amazon used internal data of third-party sellers and engaged in preferential treatment of private labels and preferred sellers. The Reuters reports join a series of other reports and studies which reveal that such conduct is pervasive across product categories. In light of this information, this paper makes two broad arguments. First, the paper argues that the scope of the competition investigation in India should be broadened beyond smartphones. The investigation should be reoriented to focus on the relationship between Amazon and its preferred sellers or retailers more broadly, rather than bifurcating the investigation along the lines of separate product categories. Second, the paper argues that the publicly-available information is sufficient to satisfy the legal test for passing an interim order. Such an interim order should prohibit Amazon from acting in the dual capacity of marketplace and seller. The necessity of the interim order has been highlighted through reference to the potentially irreparable and unquantifiable harm done to competition and consumers and the protracted nature of competition proceedings which might render the final order redundant.","PeriodicalId":106680,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129934656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article argues that the traceability mandate imposed in India by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 undermines encryption and negatively impacts cybersecurity as well as the fundamental right to privacy. In doing so, it explains how the traceability requirement fails the necessity and proportionality test laid down by the Indian Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment, wherein it held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Further, the article makes a case for why encryption is important for protecting privacy, free expression, and other human rights, and also for bulwarking the economy, preserving democracy, and ensuring national security. Part I of the article provides a background on how encryption works and the purpose it serves in the digital era. Part II analyzes the trajectory of encryption policy in India and the relevant legal frameworks. Thereafter, Part III explains the traceability mandate under the New Intermediary Guidelines and its effect on encryption, and consequently, the impact on cybersecurity and the right to privacy. It assesses whether it meets the requirement of necessity and proportionality as set out by the Supreme Court. Finally, Part IV explains that encryption should be protected and encouraged because it guards against unwarranted surveillance and preserves privacy and expression, is a crucial tool to protect human rights in the digital age, strengthens national security, and benefits the economy
{"title":"Encryption in India: Preserving the Online Engine of Privacy, Free Expression, Security, and Economic Growth","authors":"Greg Nojeim, N. Maheshwari","doi":"10.55496/hgck9762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55496/hgck9762","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that the traceability mandate imposed in India by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 undermines encryption and negatively impacts cybersecurity as well as the fundamental right to privacy. In doing so, it explains how the traceability requirement fails the necessity and proportionality test laid down by the Indian Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment, wherein it held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Further, the article makes a case for why encryption is important for protecting privacy, free expression, and other human rights, and also for bulwarking the economy, preserving democracy, and ensuring national security. Part I of the article provides a background on how encryption works and the purpose it serves in the digital era. Part II analyzes the trajectory of encryption policy in India and the relevant legal frameworks. Thereafter, Part III explains the traceability mandate under the New Intermediary Guidelines and its effect on encryption, and consequently, the impact on cybersecurity and the right to privacy. It assesses whether it meets the requirement of necessity and proportionality as set out by the Supreme Court. Finally, Part IV explains that encryption should be protected and encouraged because it guards against unwarranted surveillance and preserves privacy and expression, is a crucial tool to protect human rights in the digital age, strengthens national security, and benefits the economy","PeriodicalId":106680,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"215 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122380708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
More broadly, the tools at the US government’s disposal— IEEPA, Congressional lawmaking authority, and CFIUS review—encourage the use of such flimsy rationale and a lack of transparency, which ultimately promotes such broad bans; and the costs of these bans are dear. There may be First Amendment implications, and at the very least, a chilling of speech. There are also significant impacts on American foreign policy, from legitimizing the Chinese strategy of cybersovereignty and government regulation, to the creation of incentives to localize data in a manner that might undermine American law enforcement efforts.
{"title":"Building Digital Walls and Making Speech and Internet Freedom (or Chinese Technology) Pay for It","authors":"Apratim Vidyarthi, Rachel Hulvey","doi":"10.55496/leme6374","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55496/leme6374","url":null,"abstract":"More broadly, the tools at the US government’s disposal— IEEPA, Congressional lawmaking authority, and CFIUS review—encourage the use of such flimsy rationale and a lack of transparency, which ultimately promotes such broad bans; and the costs of these bans are dear. There may be First Amendment implications, and at the very least, a chilling of speech. There are also significant impacts on American foreign policy, from legitimizing the Chinese strategy of cybersovereignty and government regulation, to the creation of incentives to localize data in a manner that might undermine American law enforcement efforts.","PeriodicalId":106680,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123776528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The so-called 'biotechnology clause' of Article 27.3(b) of the WTO-TRIPS Agreement requires from member states protection for plant varieties either via the patent system or via an 'effective sui generis system' or by a combination of the two. Many developing countries prefer forms of sui generis protection, which allow them to include exceptions and protection measures for traditional agricultural practices and the traditional knowledge of farmers and local communities. However, 'traditional knowledge' remains a vaguely defined term. Its extension to biodiversity has brought a diffusion of the previously clearer link between protected subject matter, intellectual property and potential beneficiaries. The Philippine legislation attempts a 'bottom-up' approach focusing on the holistic perceptions of indigenous communities, whereas national economic interests thus far receive priority in India’s more centralist approach. Administrative decentralisation, recognition of customary rights, disclosure requirements, registers of landraces and geographical indications are discussed as additional measures, but their implementation is equally challenging. The article concludes that many of the concepts remain contested and that governments have to balance the new commercial incentives with the biodiversity considerations that led to their introduction, so that the system can be made sufficiently attractive for both knowledge holders and potential users of the knowledge.
{"title":"Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India","authors":"C. Antons","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2617565","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2617565","url":null,"abstract":"The so-called 'biotechnology clause' of Article 27.3(b) of the WTO-TRIPS Agreement requires from member states protection for plant varieties either via the patent system or via an 'effective sui generis system' or by a combination of the two. Many developing countries prefer forms of sui generis protection, which allow them to include exceptions and protection measures for traditional agricultural practices and the traditional knowledge of farmers and local communities. However, 'traditional knowledge' remains a vaguely defined term. Its extension to biodiversity has brought a diffusion of the previously clearer link between protected subject matter, intellectual property and potential beneficiaries. The Philippine legislation attempts a 'bottom-up' approach focusing on the holistic perceptions of indigenous communities, whereas national economic interests thus far receive priority in India’s more centralist approach. Administrative decentralisation, recognition of customary rights, disclosure requirements, registers of landraces and geographical indications are discussed as additional measures, but their implementation is equally challenging. The article concludes that many of the concepts remain contested and that governments have to balance the new commercial incentives with the biodiversity considerations that led to their introduction, so that the system can be made sufficiently attractive for both knowledge holders and potential users of the knowledge.","PeriodicalId":106680,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128790656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：