Pub Date : 2021-09-14DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977221
Henrik Palmer Olsen, Cornelius Wiesener
In this article, we examine the European framework of collecting and analysing flight passenger name record (PNR) data for the purpose of combating terrorism and serious crime. The focus is mainly on the EU PNR Directive of 2016, but we also consider the specific legislative framework in Germany and Denmark. In light of the recent review of the Directive, the article aims at exploring the policy-related, legal and technological challenges. In doing so, it goes beyond established data protection concerns. In particular, we debunk the popular claim that PNR analysis in and of itself entails the risk of discrimination of certain groups – a claim commonly levelled against algorithmic analysis. We also provide useful insights into the specific legal safeguards vis-à-vis automated profiling and decision-making through human review. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 7 July 2020; Accepted 14 February 2021
{"title":"Beyond data protection concerns – the European passenger name record system","authors":"Henrik Palmer Olsen, Cornelius Wiesener","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1977221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1977221","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we examine the European framework of collecting and analysing flight passenger name record (PNR) data for the purpose of combating terrorism and serious crime. The focus is mainly on the EU PNR Directive of 2016, but we also consider the specific legislative framework in Germany and Denmark. In light of the recent review of the Directive, the article aims at exploring the policy-related, legal and technological challenges. In doing so, it goes beyond established data protection concerns. In particular, we debunk the popular claim that PNR analysis in and of itself entails the risk of discrimination of certain groups – a claim commonly levelled against algorithmic analysis. We also provide useful insights into the specific legal safeguards vis-à-vis automated profiling and decision-making through human review. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 7 July 2020; Accepted 14 February 2021","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46350093","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}
Pub Date : 2021-08-20DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2113668
Clement Guitton, Aurelia Tamó-Larrieux, S. Mayer
ABSTRACT The possibility of encoding regulation to make it processable automatically by computers has been gaining attention within the legal discipline. With it, an abundance of terms has emerged as much as an array of academic discussions providing different examples, raising different concerns, while, unfortunately, having different premises in mind. This makes contributions within the field of what we refer to as ‘automatically processable regulation’ difficult to compare with each other and research results hard to transfer among different research projects and groups. To overcome this problem, we propose a typology that enables researchers to locate and position research projects within the domain of automatically processable regulation, understand what issues might arise depending on where within the typology a project falls, and determine the relationship between projects. The typology revolves around three dimensions: the primary aim of the project, the potential for divergence of interests amongst stakeholders, and the degree of mediation by computers.
{"title":"A typology of automatically processable regulation","authors":"Clement Guitton, Aurelia Tamó-Larrieux, S. Mayer","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2022.2113668","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2113668","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The possibility of encoding regulation to make it processable automatically by computers has been gaining attention within the legal discipline. With it, an abundance of terms has emerged as much as an array of academic discussions providing different examples, raising different concerns, while, unfortunately, having different premises in mind. This makes contributions within the field of what we refer to as ‘automatically processable regulation’ difficult to compare with each other and research results hard to transfer among different research projects and groups. To overcome this problem, we propose a typology that enables researchers to locate and position research projects within the domain of automatically processable regulation, understand what issues might arise depending on where within the typology a project falls, and determine the relationship between projects. The typology revolves around three dimensions: the primary aim of the project, the potential for divergence of interests amongst stakeholders, and the degree of mediation by computers.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"267 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46528075","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977213
Astrid Voorwinden
ABSTRACT The ‘smart city’ movement asks new questions about the role of private actors in urban governance. Smart technology providers, because of their unique position, influence policymaking through their products and services. Yet, the effect of this role on public values remains unaddressed. This article considers how the use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in smart city development challenges public values, particularly accountability and transparency. It shows how both PPPs and smart cities frame for-profit firms as central actors in creating efficient and innovative public services and infrastructure. The risks privatisation poses for public values have to be reassessed, in light of the issue of vendor lock-in and the value-embedding capacity of technology. Furthermore, this article suggests that to mitigate such risks, data protection legislation is insufficient: the wider notion of publicisation, namely the extension of public norms to private actors acting for public purposes, needs to be re-examined in the context of the smart city. Therefore, this article contributes to the literature with a novel discussion of the possibilities and limits of using smart city PPPs as tools to safeguard public values.
{"title":"The privatised city: technology and public-private partnerships in the smart city","authors":"Astrid Voorwinden","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1977213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1977213","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The ‘smart city’ movement asks new questions about the role of private actors in urban governance. Smart technology providers, because of their unique position, influence policymaking through their products and services. Yet, the effect of this role on public values remains unaddressed. This article considers how the use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in smart city development challenges public values, particularly accountability and transparency. It shows how both PPPs and smart cities frame for-profit firms as central actors in creating efficient and innovative public services and infrastructure. The risks privatisation poses for public values have to be reassessed, in light of the issue of vendor lock-in and the value-embedding capacity of technology. Furthermore, this article suggests that to mitigate such risks, data protection legislation is insufficient: the wider notion of publicisation, namely the extension of public norms to private actors acting for public purposes, needs to be re-examined in the context of the smart city. Therefore, this article contributes to the literature with a novel discussion of the possibilities and limits of using smart city PPPs as tools to safeguard public values.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"439 - 463"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46380393","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977222
G. Pavlidis
ABSTRACT The expansion of the cryptocurrency market in the last 10 years has been exponential and a ‘watch and wait strategy’ towards the regulation of crypto-assets is no longer appropriate and justifiable. Opportunely, the European Union (EU) has recognised the need for a digital finance strategy to address regulatory gaps and help relaunch and modernise the European economy in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The philosophy behind the EU Digital Finance Strategy, in particular the proposed Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) and the proposed Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), is innovation-friendly. The EU legislative initiatives seek to unlock the potential of crypto-assets while mitigating the risks to financial stability, market integrity and consumer protection. This will lead to additional and better financial products for consumers, improving financial inclusion and financing of businesses.
{"title":"Europe in the digital age: regulating digital finance without suffocating innovation","authors":"G. Pavlidis","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1977222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1977222","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The expansion of the cryptocurrency market in the last 10 years has been exponential and a ‘watch and wait strategy’ towards the regulation of crypto-assets is no longer appropriate and justifiable. Opportunely, the European Union (EU) has recognised the need for a digital finance strategy to address regulatory gaps and help relaunch and modernise the European economy in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The philosophy behind the EU Digital Finance Strategy, in particular the proposed Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) and the proposed Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), is innovation-friendly. The EU legislative initiatives seek to unlock the potential of crypto-assets while mitigating the risks to financial stability, market integrity and consumer protection. This will lead to additional and better financial products for consumers, improving financial inclusion and financing of businesses.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"464 - 477"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42858652","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977220
Eliza Mik
ABSTRACT A contract written in natural language describes the parties’ rights and obligations. It cannot, however, ‘do’ anything. It produces legal not physical effects. Traditional contracts do not instruct computers to perform any operations. Contracts expressed in code could. The question arises: can we convert contractual documents from being passive embodiments evidencing agreements into active files containing computer instructions? The ability to guarantee that contracts are performed as agreed, an idea underlying ‘smart contracts,’ depends on the ability to express obligations in code or, more specifically, on the ability of code to express obligations exactly as agreed. Not every obligation can, however, be encoded - be it due to its very nature or to the limited expressiveness of programming languages. Highlighting the interplay between form and substance, this paper presents the complexities involved in expressing contracts in code. Before contemplating the technical aspects of ‘smart contracts’ we must confront some preliminary questions: what are we trying to encode – and for what purpose? Can the entire contract be expressed in code? Should we focus on translating legal prose into code or on encoding specific tasks that serve to discharge obligations? This paper provides the groundwork for more ambitious projects in the area of ‘smart contracts.’
{"title":"Contracts in code?","authors":"Eliza Mik","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1977220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1977220","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A contract written in natural language describes the parties’ rights and obligations. It cannot, however, ‘do’ anything. It produces legal not physical effects. Traditional contracts do not instruct computers to perform any operations. Contracts expressed in code could. The question arises: can we convert contractual documents from being passive embodiments evidencing agreements into active files containing computer instructions? The ability to guarantee that contracts are performed as agreed, an idea underlying ‘smart contracts,’ depends on the ability to express obligations in code or, more specifically, on the ability of code to express obligations exactly as agreed. Not every obligation can, however, be encoded - be it due to its very nature or to the limited expressiveness of programming languages. Highlighting the interplay between form and substance, this paper presents the complexities involved in expressing contracts in code. Before contemplating the technical aspects of ‘smart contracts’ we must confront some preliminary questions: what are we trying to encode – and for what purpose? Can the entire contract be expressed in code? Should we focus on translating legal prose into code or on encoding specific tasks that serve to discharge obligations? This paper provides the groundwork for more ambitious projects in the area of ‘smart contracts.’","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"478 - 509"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44888896","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977216
Jeffery C. Atik, Valentin Jeutner
ABSTRACT Quantum computing technology will greatly enhance the abilities of the emerging field of computational law to express, model, and operationalise law in algorithmic form. Foreshadowing the harnessing of the power of quantum computing technology by the legal sector, this essay targets, with reference to computational complexity theory, the categories of computational problems which quantum computers are better equipped to deal with than are classical computers (‘quantum supremacy’). Subsequently, the essay demarcates the possible contours of legal ‘quantum supremacy’ by showcasing three anticipated legal fields of quantum technology: optimisation problems, burdens of proof, and machine learning. Acknowledging that the exact manifestation of quantum computing technology in the legal sector is as yet difficult to predict, the essay posits that the meaningful utilisation of quantum computing technology at a later stage presupposes a creative imagination of possible use-cases at the present.
{"title":"Quantum computing and computational law","authors":"Jeffery C. Atik, Valentin Jeutner","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1977216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1977216","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Quantum computing technology will greatly enhance the abilities of the emerging field of computational law to express, model, and operationalise law in algorithmic form. Foreshadowing the harnessing of the power of quantum computing technology by the legal sector, this essay targets, with reference to computational complexity theory, the categories of computational problems which quantum computers are better equipped to deal with than are classical computers (‘quantum supremacy’). Subsequently, the essay demarcates the possible contours of legal ‘quantum supremacy’ by showcasing three anticipated legal fields of quantum technology: optimisation problems, burdens of proof, and machine learning. Acknowledging that the exact manifestation of quantum computing technology in the legal sector is as yet difficult to predict, the essay posits that the meaningful utilisation of quantum computing technology at a later stage presupposes a creative imagination of possible use-cases at the present.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"302 - 324"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48102502","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977218
Michael Guihot, Hannah McNaught
ABSTRACT The shift in the political economy from market-based to informational capitalism is wrought by increased use of technology and the adoption of platforms as the dominant networks of transaction. This has led to a concomitant increase in power of the platform entities to exert control over substantial parts of world populations. The platform entities have accrued and exercise this power including through their use of user data, by controlling the discourse and the imaginary surrounding the platforms, and through the affordances of the platforms themselves. Another of the technologies used by the platform entities to gain and entrench power is the law itself. Informational capitalism evolved within a system of existing laws. The way that platform entities have in turn enforced, ignored, and manipulated laws requires us to re-examine the law’s relationship with power. This paper examines theories of power and focuses on Steven Lukes’ radical view of power in three dimensions to help understand that relationship between power, technology, and consumer laws. The paper sets out some of the ways that consumers are manipulated, including through the use of law, in what Lukes describes as the third dimension of power.
{"title":"Platform power, technology, and law: consumer powerlessness in informational capitalism","authors":"Michael Guihot, Hannah McNaught","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1977218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1977218","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The shift in the political economy from market-based to informational capitalism is wrought by increased use of technology and the adoption of platforms as the dominant networks of transaction. This has led to a concomitant increase in power of the platform entities to exert control over substantial parts of world populations. The platform entities have accrued and exercise this power including through their use of user data, by controlling the discourse and the imaginary surrounding the platforms, and through the affordances of the platforms themselves. Another of the technologies used by the platform entities to gain and entrench power is the law itself. Informational capitalism evolved within a system of existing laws. The way that platform entities have in turn enforced, ignored, and manipulated laws requires us to re-examine the law’s relationship with power. This paper examines theories of power and focuses on Steven Lukes’ radical view of power in three dimensions to help understand that relationship between power, technology, and consumer laws. The paper sets out some of the ways that consumers are manipulated, including through the use of law, in what Lukes describes as the third dimension of power.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"510 - 549"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48168972","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977215
Lachlan Robb, Felicity Deane, Kieran Tranter
ABSTRACT Blockchain can be used to build a human-centric future. This is a challenge to recent critical literature on blockchain that sees it as another manifestation of digital capitalism that is profoundly antisocial and anti-human. This argument is in three parts. The first part identifies in the hype and critical literatures about blockchain, the blockchain conundrum of the freedom/constraint dyad. While tempting to see these literatures as forming a sealed hermeneutic of over-positive meets over-negative, it is argued that the critical discourse in locating blockchain within digital capitalism provides an insight that could unravel the blockchain conundrum. The critical literature identifies regulation as essential for human blockchain futures. The second part unravels the blockchain conundrum through this focus on regulation–through two accounts of law, technology and society; Lessig’s notion of actors as ‘pathetic dots’ and Brownsword’s reimaging of regulation in technological societies. It is suggested that Brownsword’s emphasis provides a more nuanced way to make human-centric blockchain futures. The final part builds from Brownsword’s resolution of the blockchain conundrum, to examine a particular blockchain application in retail supply (BeefLedger) as representing assemblages including blockchains in building human-centric futures through trusted communities that enable, rather than restrict, meaningful human action.
{"title":"The blockchain conundrum: humans, community regulation and chains","authors":"Lachlan Robb, Felicity Deane, Kieran Tranter","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1977215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1977215","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 Blockchain can be used to build a human-centric future. This is a challenge to recent critical literature on blockchain that sees it as another manifestation of digital capitalism that is profoundly antisocial and anti-human. This argument is in three parts. The first part identifies in the hype and critical literatures about blockchain, the blockchain conundrum of the freedom/constraint dyad. While tempting to see these literatures as forming a sealed hermeneutic of over-positive meets over-negative, it is argued that the critical discourse in locating blockchain within digital capitalism provides an insight that could unravel the blockchain conundrum. The critical literature identifies regulation as essential for human blockchain futures. The second part unravels the blockchain conundrum through this focus on regulation–through two accounts of law, technology and society; Lessig’s notion of actors as ‘pathetic dots’ and Brownsword’s reimaging of regulation in technological societies. It is suggested that Brownsword’s emphasis provides a more nuanced way to make human-centric blockchain futures. The final part builds from Brownsword’s resolution of the blockchain conundrum, to examine a particular blockchain application in retail supply (BeefLedger) as representing assemblages including blockchains in building human-centric futures through trusted communities that enable, rather than restrict, meaningful human action.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"355 - 376"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44565322","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977223
John T. Quinn, Barry Connolly
ABSTRACT There are two primary purposes of property registers. First, they make public the proprietary interests that exist in a piece of property (disclosure). Second, they provide confidence to the holders of proprietary interests that their rights will be enforceable against other parties and will take priority over lesser competing interests (assurance). However, disclosure and assurance are only useful to the extent that the information held on the register is accurate and trusted. Accuracy and trust have traditionally been ensured by using an independent intermediary. However, many existing property registration systems based on intermediaries have limitations and fail to provide a complete, accurate and fully reliable public record. This article addresses whether distributed ledger technology (‘DLT’) is better equipped than intermediaries to achieve the primary aims of disclosure and assurance. In considering the efficacy of DLT in this context, the article analyses three specific use cases as examples: the company charge register, registrable intellectual property (patents and trademarks) and copyright. The article argues that DLT cannot overcome all problems associated with achieving full disclosure and assurance, but in certain contexts it can offer specific advantages over existing registration systems.
{"title":"Distributed ledger technology and property registers: displacement or status quo","authors":"John T. Quinn, Barry Connolly","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1977223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1977223","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There are two primary purposes of property registers. First, they make public the proprietary interests that exist in a piece of property (disclosure). Second, they provide confidence to the holders of proprietary interests that their rights will be enforceable against other parties and will take priority over lesser competing interests (assurance). However, disclosure and assurance are only useful to the extent that the information held on the register is accurate and trusted. Accuracy and trust have traditionally been ensured by using an independent intermediary. However, many existing property registration systems based on intermediaries have limitations and fail to provide a complete, accurate and fully reliable public record. This article addresses whether distributed ledger technology (‘DLT’) is better equipped than intermediaries to achieve the primary aims of disclosure and assurance. In considering the efficacy of DLT in this context, the article analyses three specific use cases as examples: the company charge register, registrable intellectual property (patents and trademarks) and copyright. The article argues that DLT cannot overcome all problems associated with achieving full disclosure and assurance, but in certain contexts it can offer specific advantages over existing registration systems.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"377 - 397"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45914096","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977214
V. Raposo
ABSTRACT Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, technology has been widely deployed to deter the spread of the virus. One such technology is wearable devices that can collect health data and inform health authorities about potential infections. Despite the laudable purposes of this technology, we might be on the verge of another digital Big Brother. This is not a case in which our moves are being watched, but our bodies are, in an extreme form of public health surveillance. This paper analyses the use of wearable devices to track potential COVID-19 infections within the framework of public health and related individual and state duties. The paper focuses on the threats that these devices may pose to individual rights and liberties, particularly self-determination (the freedom to not be tested for infectious diseases) and privacy (the protection of private data).
{"title":"Big Brother Knows that you are infected: wearable devices to track potential COVID-19 infections","authors":"V. Raposo","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2021.1977214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1977214","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, technology has been widely deployed to deter the spread of the virus. One such technology is wearable devices that can collect health data and inform health authorities about potential infections. Despite the laudable purposes of this technology, we might be on the verge of another digital Big Brother. This is not a case in which our moves are being watched, but our bodies are, in an extreme form of public health surveillance. This paper analyses the use of wearable devices to track potential COVID-19 infections within the framework of public health and related individual and state duties. The paper focuses on the threats that these devices may pose to individual rights and liberties, particularly self-determination (the freedom to not be tested for infectious diseases) and privacy (the protection of private data).","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"13 1","pages":"422 - 438"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47635908","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：